Wilkinson

United States v. Wilkinson

Good Law
76 F. App'x 210
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitSeptember 29, 2003Nos. 02-30365, 03-30000, 03-30024; D.C. No. CR-99-00013-GF/CCL-4, CR-95-00011-2-CCL, CR-99-00073-CCLCalifornia840 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM *

Jason Wilkinson, Robert G. Longee, and Susan Sanchez appeal the sentences imposed upon them by the district court after that court revoked appellants’ supervised release. Because the parties are familiar with the facts, we do not repeat them here.

All appellants challenge their postrevocation sentences on the grounds that the district court erred in interpreting the Sentencing Guidelines and relevant sections of the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 (“the Act”). Only Sanchez objected to her postrevocation sentence in the district court. This court therefore reviews Sanchez’s sentence de novo, United States v. Kohli, 110 F.3d 1475, 1477 (9th Cir.1997), but reviews the sentences of Longee and Wilkinson for “plain error.” United States *212 v. Sayetsitty, 107 F.3d 1405 , 1411 (9th Cir.1997).

After considering the policy statements of Chapter 7 of the Sentencing Guidelines, U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual ch. 7 (2002), the district court was free to sentence appellants to any period of incarceration at or below the statutory maximum of 24 months. United States v. George, 184 F.3d 1119, 1122 (9th Cir.1999); 18 U.S.C. § 3583 (e)(3). No downward departure analysis was…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.