United States v. O'Reilly

── United States v. O'Reilly ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Date: May 26, 2026 Category: General NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 26 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 25-2323 Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 2:21-cr-00207-DMG-1 v. MEMORANDUM* PATRICK MICHAEL O’REILLY; AKA Patrick Reilly AKA Patrick Michael Oreilly, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Dolly M. Gee, District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted April 22, 2026 Pasadena, California Before: HIGGINSON, NGUYEN, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.** Defendant Patrick Michael O’Reilly appeals the district court’s revocation of his supervised release and his sentence on four distinct grounds: he argues that * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The Honorable Stephen A. Higginson, United States Circuit Judge for the Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit, sitting by designation. (1) there was insufficient evidence to support revocation; (2) adding a new allegation during the revocation hearing violated his due process rights; (3) the district court made three procedural errors in imposing his sentence; and (4) his sentence was substantively unreasonable. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. 1. O’Reilly first argues that the Government did not prove that he violated the conditions of his supervised release, as described in three allegations in the petition to revoke supervised release: (1) having been ordered not to commit another crime, O’Reilly was arrested for grand theft; (2) having been ordered not to possess a dangerous weapon, O’Reilly entered a federal building with an illegal switchblade; and (3) having been ordered not to possess a dangerous weapon, O’Reilly entered a federal building with a pocketknife. O’Reilly was arrested for grand theft after he exited a Home Depot store with over $1,300 in merchandise that he had not paid for, claiming that he planned to return to the store and pay after checking his bank account balance outside. Shortly after that arrest, O’Reilly’s probation officer directed him to report to her office at the Los Angeles Federal Building. When O’Reilly entered the building, the metal detector alerted, and a knife was found in his backpack. U.S. Marshals also found a second knife on his person. To revoke a term of supervised release, the district court must “find[] by a 2 25-2323 preponderance of the evidence that the defendant violated a condition of supervised release.” 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3). On a sufficiency of the evidence challenge to revocation, we consider whether, “viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the government, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of a violation by a preponderance of the evidence.” United States v. King, 608 F.3d 1122, 1129 (9th Cir. 2010) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting United States v. Jeremiah, 493 F.3d 1042, 1045 (9th Cir. 2007)). Taking the facts in the light most favorable to the Government, the district court did not err in finding that O’Reilly violated conditions of his supervised release. The district court heard testimony about the facts surrounding O’Reilly’s arrest for grand theft and reasonably rejected