Warden
United States v. Warden
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM **
Brett Warden appeals from the sentence imposed upon revocation of his supervised release. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . Because Warden failed to object to his sentence, we review for plain error. See United States v. Garcia, 823 F.3d 1161, 1165 (9th Cir.2003). We affirm.
Warden contends that the district court imposed an impermissible sentence upon revocation of his supervised release. Specifically, he contends under Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 , 124 S.Ct. 2531 , 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004), the maximum possible punishment for his offense should have been the maximum under the Guidelines range in his particular case, rather than the sentence authorized under the statute of conviction. We disagree.
Contrary to Warden’s contentions, Blakely does not affect the district court’s consideration of the statutory maximum punishment a defendant is exposed to under his statute of conviction. See United States v. Murillo, 422 F.3d 1152, 1155 (9th Cir.2005) (noting that Blakely concerned the maximum sentence a judge may impose based on the jury’s verdict or the defendant’s guilty plea, but does not modify a crime’s potential punishment).