NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT SEP 10 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 14-50008
Plaintiff - Appellee, D. C. No. 3:12-cr-07084-BEN-1
v. MEMORANDUM*
ENOCH ALJOURN. MONTAQUE,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Roger T. Benitez, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted August 27, 2014
Pasadena, California
Before: O’SCANNLAIN and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges, and RAKOFF,
Senior District Judge.**
Defendant-Appellant Enoch A. Montaque appeals from the District Court’s
judgment revoking his supervised release and imposing a five-month, below-
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The Honorable Jed S. Rakoff, Senior District Judge for the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation.
guidelines sentence of imprisonment, thirty-one month sentence of supervised
release, and additional conditions requiring that Montaque undergo an anger
management program and a mental health treatment program.
Montaque argues principally that the Court committed procedural error and
violated his First Amendment rights by imposing an additional unwritten
“constructive condition” of supervised release during sentencing, stating “I’ll make
a note in my file, you ever do that again [swear at a probation officer], I get a
violation petition, I’ll send you away for 24 months.” In context, it is clear that
this was just a warning by the district judge that the defendant’s offensive and
scurrilous retort to a proper inquiry by the Probation Officer was entirely
inappropriate, particularly when as the District Court went on to say, the Probation
Officer was simply trying to help the defendant. . No additional condition was
imposed and there would be no basis for filing a future specification for any
supposed violation of this non-existent condition.
Additionally, Montaque argues that the District Court committed procedural
error in sentencing the defendant without clearly articulating its rationale, and
further that the substance of the sentence imposed was unreasonable. However, as
is the case here, a “within-Guidelines sentence ordinarily needs little explanation,”
-2-
United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008), and similarly, a within-
guidelines sentence is usually reasonable, see id. at 994.
AFFIRMED.
-3-