USA V. DARCY PASCHALL, No. 16-50502 (9th Cir. 2017)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED JUL 3 2017 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 16-50502 D.C. No. 3:05-cr-00200-BEN v. MEMORANDUM* DARCY PASCHALL, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Roger T. Benitez, District Judge, Presiding Submitted June 26, 2017** Before: PAEZ, BEA, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges. Darcy Paschall appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the six-month custodial sentence and 51-month term of supervision imposed upon 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 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). Paschall contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to respond to her nonfrivolous argument in favor of leniency. We review for plain error, see United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2010), and conclude that there was none. The record reflects that the district court considered Paschall’s argument and adequately explained its reasons for imposing the sentence selected. See Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 358-59 (2007). Paschall also contends that the 51-month term of supervised release is substantively unreasonable in light of the district court’s willingness to terminate supervision in two years if Paschall remains violation-free. The district court did not abuse its discretion. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The term of supervised release is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, including Paschall’s history of drug and alcohol abuse. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. AFFIRMED. 2 16-50502

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.