Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kyle K. CROSON, AKA Kyle Kenneth Croson, Defendant-Appellant.
MEMORANDUM **
Kyle Kenneth Croson appeals the district court's order revoking his supervised release and sentencing him to twelve months’ imprisonment. We have jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 3742 and 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
Because there is no precedential decision to the contrary, the district court did not plainly err in accepting Croson's counsel's admission to the supervised release violations on Croson's behalf; the court was not required to obtain Croson's personal admission. See United States v. Segal, 549 F.2d 1293, 1300 (9th Cir. 1977). Contrary to Croson's argument, the probation officer sufficiently identified all six supervised release violations, including Violation 8, the two missed urinalysis tests on February 2 and 12, 2018.
The district court did not plainly err by not soliciting the government's position on sentencing. The district court asked the government if it had any questions, and there is no indication that the government lacked “an opportunity to speak equivalent to that of the defendant's attorney.” United States v. Urrutia-Contreras, 782 F.3d 1110, 1112 (9th Cir. 2015) (internal quotation marks omitted). Moreover, Croson has not met his burden of showing that any error was one that “seriously affect[ed] the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings,” United States v. Vonn, 535 U.S. 55, 63, 122 S.Ct. 1043, 152 L.Ed.2d 90 (2002) (internal quotation marks omitted) (alterations in original), given that the sentence was within the range recommended by the Guidelines, and thus was consistent with the Commission's statutory mandate of ensuring fairness and certainty in sentencing, see Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 350, 127 S.Ct. 2456, 168 L.Ed.2d 203 (2007).
The court did not erroneously consider whether the sentence would “promote respect for the law” or “provide just punishment for the offense.” 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(A); see also United States v. Miqbel, 444 F.3d 1173, 1181 (9th Cir. 2006). The record reflects that the court merely asked Croson whether he had given up on treatment and wanted the court to abandon its supervised release efforts and impose sentence for Croson's underlying convictions.
AFFIRMED.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: No. 18-30069
Decided: February 20, 2019
Court: United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)