Opinion
22-30018
10-18-2022
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. TYLER CLINTON TURNER, Defendant-Appellant.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
Submitted October 12, 2022 [**]
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington Stanley A. Bastian, District Judge, Presiding D.C. No. 2:19-cr-00064-SAB-1
Before: SILVERMAN, GRABER, and BENNETT, Circuit Judges.
MEMORANDUM [*]
Tyler Clinton Turner appeals from the district court's judgment and challenges the 33-month term of supervised release imposed upon revocation of his supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Turner contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to explain adequately why it imposed a 33-month term of supervised release after imposing 24 months' supervision for his underlying conviction. We review for plain error, see United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2010), and conclude that there is none. The record reflects that the district court was initially inclined to impose a within-Guidelines custodial sentence and terminate supervision, but elected to impose a below-Guidelines term of imprisonment and lengthy term of supervised release after Turner expressed his willingness to continue working with probation. This record is adequate to afford meaningful appellate review. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc). In any event, Turner has not shown a reasonable probability that, absent the alleged error, the district court would have imposed a shorter term of supervised release. See United States v. Dallman, 533 F.3d 755, 762 (9th Cir. 2008).
Turner also contends that the 33-month term of supervised release is substantively unreasonable. The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing the 33-month term, which is substantively reasonable in light of the totality of circumstances. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007).
AFFIRMED.
[*] This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
[**] The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).