Check how courts have cited this case. Use our free citator for the most current treatment.
No. 8641625
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
United States v. Dempsey
No. 8641625 · Decided June 14, 2007
No. 8641625·Ninth Circuit · 2007·
FlawFinder last updated this page Apr. 2, 2026
Case Details
Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided
June 14, 2007
Citation
No. 8641625
Disposition
See opinion text.
Full Opinion
*614 MEMORANDUM ** James Gary Dempsey appeals from the district court’s judgment revoking supervised release. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm. Although Dempsey contends that the district court failed to explain adequately the reasons for the sentence, this contention is belied by the record. See United States v. Mix, 457 F.3d 906, 912-13 (9th Cir.2006). Dempsey also contends that the district court failed to consider all of the relevant factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553 (a), including the need to provide for drug treatment in the most effective manner, and did not understand that it had the authority to substitute time in community corrections for prison time. We disagree. We conclude that the district court understood its authority to impose a term of imprisonment below the recommended Sentencing Guidelines range, considered the relevant § 3553(a) factors, and imposed an individualized sentence that is not unreasonable in light of those factors, including the need for the most effective drug treatment. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553 (a); 18 U.S.C. § 3583 (e); United States v. Miqbel, 444 F.3d 1173, 1176 (9th Cir.2006). AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Plain English Summary
*614 MEMORANDUM ** James Gary Dempsey appeals from the district court’s judgment revoking supervised release.
Key Points
01*614 MEMORANDUM ** James Gary Dempsey appeals from the district court’s judgment revoking supervised release.
02Although Dempsey contends that the district court failed to explain adequately the reasons for the sentence, this contention is belied by the record.
03Dempsey also contends that the district court failed to consider all of the relevant factors set forth in 18 U.S.C.
04§ 3553 (a), including the need to provide for drug treatment in the most effective manner, and did not understand that it had the authority to substitute time in community corrections for prison time.
Frequently Asked Questions
*614 MEMORANDUM ** James Gary Dempsey appeals from the district court’s judgment revoking supervised release.
FlawCheck shows no negative treatment for United States v. Dempsey in the current circuit citation data.
This case was decided on June 14, 2007.
Use the citation No. 8641625 and verify it against the official reporter before filing.