UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
January 20, 2011
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF - APPELLEE,
JUVENILE MALE, DEFENDANT - APPELLANT.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona Cindy K. Jorgenson, District Judge, Presiding D.C. No. 4:08-cr-00923-CKJ-1
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
Argued and Submitted January 10, 2011
San Francisco, California
Before: HUG, SCHROEDER, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Appellant L.F. challenges the district court's disposition for L.F.'s violation of his probation. L.F. contends that the district court abused its discretion in ordering L.F. to continue his probation for a period of twelve to eighteen months at a Montana treatment center located 1,200 miles from his home and family.
The district court did not abuse its discretion, as it properly weighed the requisite factors in deciding that L.F.'s rehabilitative needs could not be served by placement in local treatment programs. The district court extensively considered L.F.'s separation from his family and the psychological evaluation in the record. In sum, the district court "provide[d] a reasoned basis for why it . . . rejected less restrictive interventions." United States v. Juvenile Male, 347 F.3d 778, 788 (9th Cir. 2003) (citations omitted).*fn1
The district court's continuation of L.F.'s probation for sixty months comported with the Federal Juvenile Delinquency Act's requirements. See id. at 784. L.F. was not entitled to any credit for his pretrial detention relative to his probation, as he was not sentenced to imprisonment. See United States v. Sullivan, 504 F.3d 969, 971 (9th Cir. 2007) (observing that "detention at a community treatment center, where the defendant is not subject to the control of the Bureau of Prisons, is not imprisonment") (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
Because the district court retained ultimate authority over L.F.'s sentence and the monitoring of L.F.'s rehabilitative progress, the district court did not impermissibly delegate authority to the probation officer and the treatment center's staff in determining L.F's compliance with the probation conditions. See United States v. Stephens, 424 F.3d 876, 882 (9th Cir. 2005); see also United States v. Rearden, 349 F.3d 608, 619 (9th Cir. 2003).