Ross

United States v. Ross

Good Law
270 F. App'x 516
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMarch 13, 2008No. 07-50200California521 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM *

In 2002, Robert Edward Lee Ross (“Ross”) pled guilty to bank robbery under *517 18 U.S.C. § 2113 (a). The district court imposed a 63-month term of imprisonment, followed by three years of supervised release. One of the conditions of supervised release required him to “participate in a psychological/psychiatric counseling or treatment program, as approved and directed by the Probation Officer.” The district court did not articulate its reasoning for imposing this condition, and Ross did not appeal his sentence.

In 2007, the government sought revocation of supervised release because Ross, among other things, did not show up to required appointments with his therapist. The Probation Office Violation Report noted that Ross was no longer taking his prescribed psychotropic medication. At the revocation hearing, Ross did not dispute the recommended 11-month sentence, but “ask[ed] that there be no supervision to follow.” Making no additional findings, the district court imposed that term of imprisonment and placed Ross on a two-year term of supervised release under the “same terms and conditions” as the original sentence, which in part provided that Ross “shall participate…

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.