USA V. MARCUS ARRINGTON, No. 19-10170 (9th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED DEC 16 2019 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 19-10170 D.C. No. 1:10-cr-00023-SOM-1 v. MARCUS XAVIER ARRINGTON, MEMORANDUM* Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii Susan O. Mollway, District Judge, Presiding Submitted December 11, 2019** Before: WALLACE, CANBY, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges. Marcus Xavier Arrington appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 12-month sentence and one special condition of supervised release 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). Arrington contends that the district court erred by imposing the revocation sentence to punish him for the criminal conduct underlying the revocation, and to promote respect for the law. We review for plain error, see United States v. Burgum, 633 F.3d 810, 812 (9th Cir. 2011), and conclude that there is none. The record reflects that the district court relied on only proper sentencing factors, including Arrington’s poor history on supervision, the need to afford adequate deterrence, and the need to protect the public. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e); United States v. Simtob 485 F.3d 1058, 1062-63 (9th Cir. 2007). Arrington also challenges the special condition of supervised release that requires him to obtain permission from his probation officer before having any “direct contact” with minors under the age of 18. He maintains the condition is not reasonably related to his offense of conviction and is overbroad. The district court did not abuse its discretion or run afoul of the Constitution. See United States v. Watson, 582 F.3d 974, 981 (9th Cir. 2009) (setting forth standard). As an initial matter, Arrington has not identified any familial relationship that would be impacted by this condition. Furthermore, the condition is reasonably related to the protection of the public and involves no greater deprivation of liberty than is reasonably necessary. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(d)(1), (2); United States v. Watson, 582 F.3d at 983-85. AFFIRMED. 2 19-10170
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.
