USA V. JAMES DURGIN, No. 19-10449 (9th Cir. 2020)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED AUG 7 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 19-10449 D.C. No. 3:19-cr-00333-WHO-1 MEMORANDUM* JAMES MICHAEL DURGIN, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California William H. Orrick, III, District Judge, Presiding Submitted August 5, 2020** Before: SCHROEDER, HAWKINS, and LEE, Circuit Judges. James Michael Durgin appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 15-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for escape from custody, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 751(a), 4082(a). 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). Durgin contends that the district court impermissibly lengthened his sentence in order to promote his rehabilitation in violation of Tapia v. United States, 564 U.S. 319 (2011). We review for plain error, see United States v. Grant, 664 F.3d 276, 279 (9th Cir. 2011), and conclude that there is none. The district court’s recommendation that the Bureau of Prisons designate Durgin to a facility in Massachusetts near his family who could support him when he is released was not improper. See Tapia, 564 U.S. at 334 (district court does not run afoul of 18 U.S.C. § 3582(a) by recommending a specific prison facility for the defendant). Moreover, while the court briefly referenced the need for the sentence to promote rehabilitation, the record shows that rehabilitation played no role in the court’s sentencing decision. Rather, the court selected a sentence at the bottom of the Guidelines range, with no supervised release to follow, after considering only proper sentencing factors, including the need to provide just punishment for the offense and Durgin’s criminal history and characteristics. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). AFFIRMED. 2 19-10449

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.