From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. McAllister

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Feb 22, 2012
468 F. App'x 755 (9th Cir. 2012)

Opinion

No. 10-50366 D.C. No. 2:92-cr-00528-ABC

02-22-2012

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ROBERT EARL McALLISTER, Defendant - Appellant.


NOT FOR PUBLICATION


MEMORANDUM

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.


Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

Audrey B. Collins, Chief Judge, Presiding

Before: FERNANDEZ, McKEOWN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

Robert Earl McAllister appeals from the 36-month sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

McAllister contends that the district court erred by failing: (1) to consider probative information from two mental health evaluations, and (2) to provide a reasoned basis for rejecting the conclusion of the evaluations. The record reflects that the district court fully considered the evaluations and adequately explained its conclusion that any mental impairments did not cause McAllister to commit the bank robbery. The district court did not procedurally err, and McAllister's sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the totality of the circumstances and the relevant 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007); United States v. Simtob, 485 F.3d 1058, 1063 (9th Cir. 2007) (explaining the standard for sentencing upon revocation of supervised release).

AFFIRMED.


Summaries of

United States v. McAllister

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Feb 22, 2012
468 F. App'x 755 (9th Cir. 2012)
Case details for

United States v. McAllister

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ROBERT EARL McALLISTER…

Court:UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

Date published: Feb 22, 2012

Citations

468 F. App'x 755 (9th Cir. 2012)