NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 29 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 20-50211
Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 3:10-cr-01223-WQH-1
v.
MEMORANDUM*
WILLIAM ALBERT ZACHOLL, AKA
Billy Bones,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
William Q. Hayes, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 21, 2021**
Before: SILVERMAN, WATFORD, and BENNETT, Circuit Judges.
William Albert Zacholl appeals from the district court’s judgment and
challenges the 24-month term of supervised release imposed upon revocation of
supervised release. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we
affirm.
*
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).
Zacholl contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to
explain its decision to impose a 24-month term of supervised release. We need not
resolve the parties’ dispute over the applicable standard of review because, even
under de novo review, the district court did not err. The district court considered
Zacholl’s arguments and acknowledged Zacholl’s extended period of compliance
with the terms of supervised release but was concerned about Zacholl’s relapse and
need for substance abuse treatment. The district court’s reasons for imposing the
24-month term of supervised release are apparent from the record. See United
States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc) (adequate explanation
may be “inferred from . . . . the record as a whole”).
Zacholl also contends that the 24-month term of supervised release is
substantively unreasonable in light of his performance on supervised release prior
to his relapse and his voluntary medical and psychiatric treatment after he relapsed.
The district court did not abuse its discretion. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S.
38, 51 (2007). The supervised release term is substantively reasonable in light of
the 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) factors and the totality of the circumstances. See Gall, 552
U.S. at 51.
AFFIRMED.
2 20-50211