United States v. Leroy Mack

MEMORANDUM

Leroy Roosevelt Mack (“Mack”) appeals the length of his supervised release after a revocation of supervised release, as well as a condition placed on his supervised release. Because Mack did not object to either the length or the condition at sentencing, we review for plain error. United States v. Chhun, 744 F.3d 1110, 1123 (9th Cir.2014). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

Mack argues that the district court did not adequately explain the reason for its chosen sentence. The district court imposed an additional length of supervised release after revocation that was within the Guidelines. A sentence that is within the Guidelines “often needs little explanation.” United States v. Vasquez-Perez, 742 F.3d 896, 900 (9th Cir.2014) (citing United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc)). The district court specifically referenced the applicable factors laid out in 18 U.S.C. § 3553 (a) and did not plainly err.

Mack also argues that the district court improperly lengthened his sentence in order to promote rehabilitation in violation of Tapia v. United States, — U.S. -, 131 S.Ct. 2382, 2391 , 180 L.Ed.2d 357 (2011) and United…