United States v. Monroe Ezell, 503 F. App'x 515 (9th Cir. 2012). · Go Syfert
Search
United States v. Monroe Ezell, 503 F. App'x 515 (9th Cir. 2012). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
No syfertize treatment data for this case.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Monroe James EZELL, Defendant-Appellant
12-30061.
Docket on CourtListener (RECAP)
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Dec 31, 2012.
Unpublished opinion
503 F. App'x 515
Nicholas W. Brown, Helen J. Brunner, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Seattle, WA, for Plaintiff-Appel-lee., Kyana Stephens, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Seattle, WA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Goodwin, Wallace, Fisher.
Unpublished
Pinpoint authority: bottom 52%

MEMORANDUM **

Monroe James Ezell appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 60-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Ezell contends that the district court erred by lengthening his sentence based on his need for rehabilitation. Because Ezell failed to raise this objection at sentencing, we review for plain error. See United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir.2010). The court did not plainly err because the record reflects that it did not lengthen the sentence based on Ezell’s rehabilitative needs. See Tapia v. United States, — U.S.-, 131 S.Ct. 2382, 2392, 180 L.Ed.2d 357 (2011) (“A court commits no error by discussing the opportunities for rehabilitation within prison or the benefits of specific treatment or training programs.”).

AFFIRMED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.