United States Ninth Circuit

In defendant's appeal from the twenty-four-month term of imprisonment imposed upon revocation of his supervised release, the order is affirmed where: 1) because the revocation of supervised release is indistinguishable from the revocation of parole, the Sixth Amendment had no application to supervised release proceedings; 2) in any event, any error in the revocation order was harmless because defendant admitted to violating the terms of his supervised release; and 3) the context of defendant's threat did not necessitate the conclusion that there was an objective basis for recusal.

Appellate Information

• Decided 11/19/2010
• Published 11/19/2010

Judges

• Richard C. Tallman

Court

• United States Ninth Circuit

Counsel

• For Appellant:
  
• Daniel B. Levin, Jonathan D. Libby