USA V. JOHN LELAND, No. 16-30026 (9th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED DEC 21 2016 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, No. 16-30026 D.C. No. 2:15-cr-00031-JLQ MEMORANDUM* v. JOHN EARL LELAND, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington Justin L. Quackenbush, District Judge, Presiding Submitted December 14, 2016** Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, and FISHER, Circuit Judges. John Earl Leland appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the ten-year supervised release term imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B)(viii), and 846. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. Leland contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to calculate the Guidelines range for the supervised release term, and by failing to explain the ten-year term adequately. We review for plain error, see United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1008 (9th Cir. 2010), and hold that there is none. Even if the court erred, there is no reasonable probability that it would have imposed a different term absent the error. See United States v. Dallman, 533 F.3d 755, 762 (9th Cir. 2008). The court considered the parties’ joint recommendation for a five-year supervised term, which is the high end of the Guidelines range, and concluded that it was insufficient. It is clear from the record that the court believed that a ten-year term was necessary in light of Leland’s lengthy criminal history. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc) (adequate explanation can be inferred from the record). Leland also contends that the ten-year term of supervised release is substantively unreasonable. The court did not abuse its discretion. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The supervised release term is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and 2 16-30026 the totality of the circumstances, including Leland’s criminal record. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. AFFIRMED. 3 16-30026
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.
