NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 3 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 16-10402
Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 2:09-cr-00342-GMN
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ERIC MICHAEL HARRIS,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Gloria M. Navarro, Chief Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 26, 2017**
Before: PAEZ, BEA, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Eric Michael Harris appeals from the district court’s judgment and
challenges the 12-month term of supervised release imposed upon revocation of
supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Harris contends that he is not amenable to supervised release due to his
*
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).
inability to adhere to mental health treatment and medication, and consequently,
the district court abused its discretion by imposing continued supervision as part of
his supervised release revocation sentence. The 12-month term of supervised
release is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3583(c) factors and
the totality of the circumstances, including the need to rehabilitate Harris and
protect the public. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). Harris’s
argument that he is unamenable to supervision does not render the sentence
substantively unreasonable. See United States v. Hurt, 345 F.3d 1033, 1036 (9th
Cir. 2003) (“A violation of the conditions of supervised release does not obviate
the need for further supervision, but rather confirms the judgment that supervision
was necessary.”).
AFFIRMED.
2 16-10402