Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

United States v. Male

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

August 14, 2018

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
JUVENILE MALE, Defendant-Appellant.

          Argued and Submitted July 10, 2018 San Francisco, California

          Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona Cindy K. Jorgenson, District Judge, Presiding D.C. No. 4:12-cr-01126-CJK-JR-1

          Before: Susan P. Graber and Richard C. Tallman, Circuit Judges, and Ivan L.R. Lemelle, [*] Senior District Judge.

          OPINION

          IVAN L.R. LEMELLE, SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE.

         Juvenile Defendant-Appellant D.A.T. appeals the district court's imposition of a 34-month term of official detention following revocation of Appellant's juvenile delinquent supervision. Appellant argues that his term of official detention exceeded the statutory maximum established in 18 U.S.C. § 5037(d)(5). Because we agree, we vacate the sentence and remand with instructions that the district court order Appellant's immediate release.

         FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

         In August 2009, when Appellant was 15 years old, he and two other individuals killed R.O. on the Tohono O'odham Nation. Appellant was arrested by tribal authorities and remained in tribal custody until he was transferred to federal custody in June 2012, shortly after the government charged Appellant with first degree murder in a one count information. In January 2013, Appellant reached a plea agreement with the government and pled guilty to second-degree murder, as charged in an amended information. The statutory maximum sentence was five years of official detention. See 18 U.S.C. § 5037(c)(2)(A). On April 2, 2013, the district court sentenced Appellant to 28 months of official detention, followed by juvenile delinquent supervision until Appellant's 21st birthday.

         Appellant was released from detention on June 25, 2014, at the age of 20. But in November 2014, a warrant was issued for Appellant's arrest because he violated the conditions of his juvenile delinquent supervision. As part of a Juvenile Revocation Disposition Agreement with the government, Appellant admitted to two violations of his juvenile delinquent supervision conditions- commission of various crimes and use of controlled substances. In October 2015, the district court revoked Appellant's juvenile delinquent supervision and sentenced him to nine months of official detention for each violation, to be served consecutively, followed by 42 months of juvenile delinquent supervision.

         Appellant was released from detention on July 29, 2016, at the age of 22. In September 2016, a second warrant was issued for Appellant's arrest, again because Appellant violated the conditions of his juvenile delinquent supervision. In April 2017, Appellant admitted to two violations (failure to notify probation of contact with law enforcement and consumption of alcoholic beverages) without a plea agreement. In May 2017, the district court revoked Appellant's juvenile delinquent supervision and sentenced him to 34 months of official detention for each violation, to be served concurrently, with no term of juvenile delinquent supervision to follow. Appellant did not object at the hearing, but timely appealed his sentence.

         JURISDICTION AND STANDARD OF REVIEW

         The district court had jurisdiction over Appellant's revocation proceeding pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 3231 and 5031-5037. We have appellate jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 18 U.S.C. § 3742.

         The parties disagree about whether we should review de novo or for plain error. Regardless of which standard applies, the sentence imposed exceeded the maximum permitted by law.[1]

         DISCUSSION

         This appeal presents a question of statutory interpretation. The Federal Juvenile Delinquency Act (FJDA) governs the adjudication of juvenile delinquency in federal courts. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 5031-5042. When a district court finds a juvenile to be a juvenile delinquent, the FJDA empowers the district court to impose a term of official detention, followed by a term of juvenile delinquent supervision. See id. § 5037(a), (c), (d). The FJDA also empowers the district court to revoke juvenile delinquent supervision if a juvenile violates a condition of supervision, and to impose a new term of official detention. See id. ยง 5037(d)(5). In this appeal, the parties dispute the maximum term of official detention that can be imposed upon ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.