FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 21 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 10-10589
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 2:06-CR-00283-JCC
v.
MEMORANDUM *
JOHN MARVIN BALLARD,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
John C. Coughenour, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 19, 2011 **
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
John Marvin Ballard appeals from the 60-month sentence imposed on
remand for resentencing following his jury-trial conviction for scheming to conceal
a material fact, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a)(1). 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 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Contrary to the government’s contention, Ballard’s release from custody on
October 14, 2010, does not render this appeal moot because he remains on
supervised release. See United States v. Verdin, 243 F.3d 1174, 1178 (9th Cir.
2001) (appeal not moot because “success for [Ballard] could alter the supervised
release portion of his sentence”) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
Ballard contends that the district court failed to comply with 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(c), which requires the court to state in open court its reasons for imposing a
particular sentence. Because Ballard did not object to the court’s statement of
reasons at sentencing, this contention is reviewed for plain error. See United States
v. Miqbel, 444 F.3d 1173, 1176 (9th Cir. 2006). Ballard has not demonstrated the
denial of his substantial rights, given the district court’s lengthy explanation for the
sentence in its written order. See United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 732-34
(1993).
Ballard also contends that his statutory maximum sentence is substantively
unreasonable. The sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the totality of
the circumstances and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors, in particular the
need to protect the public. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 993 (9th Cir.
2008) (en banc).
AFFIRMED.
2 10-10589