Opinion
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
D.C. No. CR-93-00026-MRH
Editorial Note:This opinion appears in the Federal reporter in a table titled "Table of Decisions Without Reported Opinions". (See FI CTA9 Rule 36-3 regarding use of unpublished opinions)
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Montana, Michael R. Hogan, Chief Judge, Presiding.
Before REAVLEY, REINHARDT and MCKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
The Honorable Thomas M. Reavley, Senior United States Circuit Judge for the United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit, sitting by designation.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Ronald Fulbright appeals his sentence of five years probation. He challenges the severity of his sentence. "We must give due deference to the district court's application of the guidelines to the facts. Unless the court imposed the sentence in violation of the law, applied the guidelines incorrectly, or imposed a sentence that is both outside the applicable guideline range and unreasonable, we must affirm." United States v. Johnson, 130 F.3d 1352, 1354 (9th Cir.1997) (citations omitted). Fulbright has not shown that the sentence was imposed in violation of law, was based on an incorrect application of the sentencing guidelines, or was outside the applicable guideline range.
Fulbright complains that the district court failed to articulate the reasons for the sentence it imposed. Our review of the record persuades us that the court adequately articulated its reasons, in compliance with 18 U.S.C. § 3553(c). See United States v. Lockard, 910 F.2d 542, 546 (9th Cir.1990).
Fulbright argues that the district court should have credited the term of his sentence of probation with time he spent while on release pending appeal and resentencing. He has not cited, nor can we locate, any authority for such a credit. Although a defendant is entitled to a credit against his "sentence to a term of imprisonment" for time "spent in official detention," 18 U.S.C. § 3585, Fulbright was not sentenced to a term of imprisonment, nor does time spent on release on bond qualify as time spent in official detention. See Fraley v. United States Bureau of Prisons, 1 F.3d 924, 925 (9th Cir.1993); Lahey v. Floyd, 992 F.2d 234, 236 (9th Cir.1993).
AFFIRMED.