The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
11-50548•United States of America v. Darrin Dent, a.k.a. Bo, a.k.a. Darren Dent, a.k.a. Darrin Lanail Dent, a.k.a. Darrin…
11-50548Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMay 21, 2013
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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DARRIN DENT, a.k.a. Bo, a.k.a. Darren
Dent, a.k.a. Darrin Lanail Dent, a.k.a.
Darrin Lynell Dent, a.k.a. Darryl Dent,
a.k.a. Danny Madison Hill, a.k.a. Darren
Mejesse Hill, a.k.a. Darrin Hill, a.k.a. D.
Madison, a.k.a. Dennis Madison, a.k.a.
Anthony Madra, a.k.a. Keno Peoples,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 11-50548
D.C. No. 2:10-cr-00923-SJO
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
S. James Otero, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 14, 2013**
Before: LEAVY, THOMAS, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Darrin Dent appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges two
FILED
MAY 21 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS
-- 1 of 2 --
11-50548 2
conditions of supervised release imposed as part of his sentence imposed following
his guilty-plea conviction for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute a
controlled substance, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. We have jurisdiction under
28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review the legality of a sentence de novo, see United States
v. Napier, 463 F.3d 1040, 1042 (9th Cir. 2006), and we affirm.
Dent contends that two special conditions of supervised release included in
the written judgment must be modified or stricken because they were not included
in the oral pronouncement of sentencing. We disagree. The written judgment
controls because it did not add any substantive conditions to Dent’s sentence that
went beyond what Dent and his counsel could have anticipated from the court’s
statements at the sentencing hearing. See id. at 1043.
AFFIRMED.
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.