FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUL 03 2012
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. 10-36162
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. Nos. 1:08-cv-00072-JDS
1:05-cr-00130-JDS
v.
LAURENCE PALMER, MEMORANDUM *
a.k.a. Lawrence Palmer,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Montana
Jack D. Shanstrom, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 26, 2012 **
Before: SCHROEDER, HAWKINS, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.
Laurence Palmer appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his
motion to modify his supervised release term. 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).
Palmer alleges he suffered several constitutional violations and that the
district court improperly relied on a prior conviction when setting his supervised
release term. Palmer’s challenges to the legality of his supervised release term are
not proper grounds for modification under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e). See United States
v. Gross, 307 F.3d 1043, 1044 (9th Cir. 2002).
Moreover, Palmer fails to show that he is entitled to relief under section
3583(e) because he is still in custody and does not argue or allege any change of
circumstances. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e); United States v. Miller, 205 F.3d 1098,
1101 (9th Cir. 2000).
To the extent Palmer’s briefing of alleged constitutional violations seeks to
argue the merits of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion, we construe those arguments as a
motion for a certificate of appealability. So construed, the motion is denied. See
9th Cir. R. 22-1(e); Hiivala v. Wood, 195 F.3d 1098, 1104-05 (9th Cir. 1999) (per
curiam).
AFFIRMED.
2 10-36162