FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 21 2013
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. 12-10625
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 2:12-cr-50103-NVW
v.
MEMORANDUM *
HAROLD ALLEN CREIGHTON, Jr.,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Neil V. Wake, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 18, 2013 **
Before: TALLMAN, M. SMITH, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Harold Allen Creighton, Jr., appeals from the district court’s judgment and
challenges the 14-month sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release.
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Creighton contends that the district court failed to explain the sentence and
*
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).
why it rejected his argument that he should be sentenced to a shorter term because
of his overincarceration on the underlying offense. Creighton also contends that
the district court violated Federal Rule of Criminal Procedural 32(i)(3)(B) by
failing to rule on the extent of his overincarceration and whether his
overincarceration had any effect on the sentence imposed. The parties dispute the
standard of review that applies to Creighton’s claims. We need not resolve this
dispute because even on de novo review, Creighton’s claims fail.
The record reflects that the court took Creighton’s argument into
consideration and adequately explained the sentence. See United States v. Carty,
520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc). Assuming, without deciding, that
Rule 32(i)(3)(B) applies to revocation of supervised release proceedings, the
court’s obligations under Rule 32(i)(3)(B) were never triggered because the district
court determined that any error in Creighton’s underlying sentence had no bearing
upon the appropriate term to be imposed for Creighton’s violation of supervised
release. See United States v. Saeteurn, 504 F.3d 1175, 1181 (9th Cir. 2007) (Rule
32(i)(3)(B) “is limited to factual disputes which affect the temporal term of the
sentence the district court imposes”).
AFFIRMED.
2 12-10625