United States v. Rudy

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 9 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 25-4792 D.C. No. Plaintiff - Appellee, 3:20-cr-00111-JD-1 v. MEMORANDUM* MARK LLOYD RUDY, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California James Donato, District Judge, Presiding Submitted October 3, 2025** Before: RAWLINSON, OWENS, and BRESS, Circuit Judges. Mark Lloyd Rudy appeals from the district court’s order denying his request for early termination of supervised release under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. On remand from this court, the district court issued a written order * 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). explaining that, though it had previously reduced Rudy’s supervision term by 15 months to reflect his strong rehabilitative efforts, no further reduction was warranted. As the court stated, “there is no good reason to turn off this support structure just a little over two months before it will end on its own accord on December 19, 2025. The conditions have benefitted Rudy enormously, and they provide substantial protection to the public from further criminal conduct by him.” The district court adequately explained its decision to deny the motion and did not abuse its broad discretion in concluding that early termination of supervised release was unwarranted. See United States v. Emmett, 749 F.3d 817, 819-21 (9th Cir. 2014). In light of this conclusion, we do not reach the government’s other arguments. AFFIRMED. 2 25-4792