NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 10 2020
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 19-30097
Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 4:02-cr-00052-DLC-1
v.
MEMORANDUM*
VICTOR CHARLES FOURSTAR, Jr.,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Montana
Dana L. Christensen, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 7, 2020**
Before: TASHIMA, BYBEE, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Victor Charles Fourstar, Jr., appeals pro se from the district court’s order
denying his motion for early termination of supervised release under 18 U.S.C.
§ 3583(e)(1). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
We review for abuse of discretion the district court’s denial of a motion for
*
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).
early termination of supervised release. See United States v. Emmett, 749 F.3d
817, 819 (9th Cir. 2014). Assuming without deciding that Fourstar met the one-
year requirement for early termination, see 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(1), Fourstar failed
to show that he was entitled to early termination of supervision. See United States
v. Weber, 451 F.3d 552, 559 n.9 (9th Cir. 2006) (it is the defendant’s burden to
demonstrate that early termination is justified). At the time Fourstar filed his
motion, he was still in custody for his third violation of supervised release, and the
record shows that he had never succeeded in complying with the conditions of his
supervision for more than a few months. Under these circumstances, the district
court did not abuse its discretion by denying Fourstar’s motion for early
termination.
Fourstar’s motion to reconsider the denial of his motion to consolidate and
to consolidate additional appeals is DENIED.
We do not consider Fourstar’s renewed motion for appointment of counsel
because the court’s previous order denying his motion for appointment of counsel
stated that no motions for reconsideration, clarification, or modification of the
denial would be entertained.
Fourstar’s remaining arguments lack merit or are beyond the scope of this
appeal.
AFFIRMED.
2 19-30097