United States of America v. Johnny Joseph Bonds

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JOHNNY JOSEPH BONDS,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 14-50487
D.C. No. 3:07-cr-00072-JAH
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
John A. Houston, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 22, 2015**
Before: HAWKINS, GRABER, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Johnny Joseph Bonds appeals from the district court’s judgment and
challenges the 20-month sentence imposed and a special condition of supervised
release reimposed upon revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
FILED
JUN 26 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 2 --

Bonds contends that the district court procedurally erred by improperly
considering the need to promote respect for law and the seriousness of the offense
conduct. We review for plain error, see United States v. Miqbel, 444 F.3d 1173,
1176 (9th Cir. 2006), and find none. The record reflects that the district court
considered only proper 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) factors, including Bonds’s repeated
breaches of the court’s trust. See Miqbel, 444 F.3d at 1182.
Bonds also contends that the district court erred by reimposing the special
condition of supervised release that requires GPS monitoring because it is not
reasonably related to the section 3583(d) factors and is a greater deprivation of
liberty than reasonably necessary. We review the district court’s imposition of a
supervised release condition for abuse of discretion. See United States v. Weber,
451 F.3d 552, 557 (9th Cir. 2006). In light of Bonds’s criminal history and his
repeated failures to comply with the terms of his supervision, the district court did
not abuse its discretion by imposing the condition to facilitate his compliance with
the other conditions of supervised release. See id. at 557-58.
AFFIRMED.
14-50487 2

-- 2 of 2 --