Check how courts have cited this case. Use our free citator for the most current treatment.
No. 8691492
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
United States v. Willoughby
No. 8691492 · Decided April 11, 2014
No. 8691492·Ninth Circuit · 2014·
FlawFinder last updated this page Apr. 2, 2026
Case Details
Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided
April 11, 2014
Citation
No. 8691492
Disposition
See opinion text.
Full Opinion
MEMORANDUM ** Eric Lamont Willoughby appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 12-month-and-one-day term of imprisonment and the two-year term of supervised release imposed upon revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm. Willoughby contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable in light of the mitigating factors and the staleness of one of his supervised release violations. The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing Willoughby’s sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 , 128 S.Ct. 586 , 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). The court found that Willoughby violated three conditions of supervised release. The sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the statutory sentencing factors and Wil-loughby’s breach of the court’s trust. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583 (e); United States v. Miqbel, 444 F.3d 1173, 1182 (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
MEMORANDUM ** Eric Lamont Willoughby appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 12-month-and-one-day term of imprisonment and the two-year term of supervised release imposed upon revocation of supervised release.
Key Points
01MEMORANDUM ** Eric Lamont Willoughby appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 12-month-and-one-day term of imprisonment and the two-year term of supervised release imposed upon revocation of supervised release.
02Willoughby contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable in light of the mitigating factors and the staleness of one of his supervised release violations.
03The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing Willoughby’s sentence.
04The court found that Willoughby violated three conditions of supervised release.
Frequently Asked Questions
MEMORANDUM ** Eric Lamont Willoughby appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 12-month-and-one-day term of imprisonment and the two-year term of supervised release imposed upon revocation of supervised release.
FlawCheck shows no negative treatment for United States v. Willoughby in the current circuit citation data.
This case was decided on April 11, 2014.
Use the citation No. 8691492 and verify it against the official reporter before filing.