USA V. DARYL MARSHALL, No. 14-50426 (9th Cir. 2015)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED APR 24 2015 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, No. 14-50426 D.C. No. 3:07-cr-01821-BEN v. MEMORANDUM* DARYL KEITH MARSHALL, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Roger T. Benitez, District Judge, Presiding Submitted April 22, 2015** Before: GOODWIN, BYBEE, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges. Daryl Keith Marshall appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Marshall contends that the district court erred by failing to provide him with an opportunity to be heard regarding whether his violation warranted revocation of his supervised release. Contrary to Marshall’s contention, the denial of the right of allocution is not a “structural error” warranting automatic reversal. See Boardman v. Estelle, 957 F.2d 1523, 1530 (9th Cir. 1992). Rather, we review for plain error, see United States v. Waknine, 543 F.3d 546, 551 (9th Cir. 2008), and find none. The record reflects that, in light of his multiple prior violations, the district court rejected Marshall’s request to be placed back on supervised release. Accordingly, Marshall has not shown a reasonable probability that, but for the alleged error, the district court would have determined that revocation was unwarranted. See United States v. Dominguez Benitez, 542 U.S. 74, 81-82 (2004). AFFIRMED. 2 14-50426

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.