NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
MAY 24 2021
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 20-10348
Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 2:18-cr-50220-DLR-1
v.
BRIAN LANGENBACH, MEMORANDUM*
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Douglas L. Rayes, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 18, 2021**
Before: CANBY, FRIEDLAND, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges.
Brian Langenbach 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. Reviewing for an abuse of
discretion, see United States v. Emmett, 749 F.3d 817, 819 (9th Cir. 2014), we
*
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).
affirm.
Langenbach contends that the district court abused its discretion because his
history on supervision showed that he was the “ideal candidate” for early
termination. He further argues that the district court erred by failing to:
(1) consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors; (2) consider Langenbach’s
reply brief; (3) grant an evidentiary hearing; and (4) resolve a “discrepancy”
regarding the probation officer’s support of Langenbach’s motion.
The district court did not abuse its broad discretion in concluding that early
termination of supervised release was not in the interest of justice. See 18 U.S.C.
§ 3583(e)(1); Emmett, 749 F.3d at 819. Contrary to Langenbach’s assertion, the
district court considered the factors set forth in § 3553(a), properly relying on one
of them to deny relief. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(7) (“[T]he need to provide
restitution to any victims of the offense”); United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984,
992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc) (“The district court need not tick off each of the
§ 3553(a) factors to show that it has considered them.”). Moreover, the court did
not err in ruling on Langenbach’s motion before it received his reply brief, which
properly did not include any new arguments. See Zamani v. Carnes, 491 F.3d 990,
997 (9th Cir. 2007). Nor was the district court required to hold a hearing on
Langenbach’s motion. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.1(c)(1) (hearing required only if the
court is modifying the conditions of supervised release). On appeal, Langenbach
2 20-10348
has not identified any information he would have provided at an evidentiary
hearing that he did not provide in his motion. Finally, the parties did not offer
conflicting accounts of the probation officer’s views regarding Langenbach’s
motion, and the court did not rely on the probation officer’s opinion in denying
relief.
AFFIRMED.
3 20-10348