United States of America v. Kenneth J. Smith, a.k.a. K. J. Smith

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
KENNETH J. SMITH, a.k.a. K. J. Smith,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 17-30063
D.C. No. 3:11-cr-00160-HZ
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Oregon
Marco A. Hernandez, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 18, 2017**
Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Kenneth J. Smith appeals the district court’s denial of his motion for early
termination of probation. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we
affirm.
FILED
DEC 21 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

-- 1 of 2 --

Smith contends that the district court procedurally erred in denying his
motion for early termination of probation without providing an adequate
explanation for its rejection of his arguments. We review for plain error, see
United States v. Rangel, 697 F.3d 795, 800 (9th Cir. 2012), and conclude that there
is none. The district court held a hearing on Smith’s motion. The record reflects
that it considered all of the parties’ arguments, including Smith’s arguments
regarding his post-sentencing achievements. The court denied Smith’s motion
because, despite his accomplishments while on probation, Smith had not yet
accomplished the original goals of his sentence, including paying restitution. The
explanation given was enough to “permit meaningful appellate review,” United
States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc). A more thorough
explanation of why the court rejected each of Smith’s arguments was not required.
See United States v. Sandoval-Orellana, 714 F.3d 1174, 1181 (9th Cir. 2013).
AFFIRMED.
17-30063 2

-- 2 of 2 --