Case ID: f-appx_426/html/0534-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Lee Edward MOORING, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 10-50534.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted April 5, 2011.
    
    Filed April 11, 2011.
    AUSA, Esquire, Los Angeles, CA, Benjamin Robert Barron, Michael J. Raphael, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for PlaintiffAppellee.
    Federal Public Defender, Office of the Federal Public Defender, Los Angeles, CA, Michael Tanaka, Deputy Federal Public Defender, FPDCA-Federal Public Defender’s Office, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: B. FLETCHER, CLIFTON, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Lee Edward Mooring appeals from the 12-month sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Mooring contends the district court proeedurally erred by improperly considering his criminal history. Contrary to Mooring’s contention, the district court did not plainly err. See U.S. v. Simtob, 485 F.3d 1058, 1062-63 (9th Cir.2007).

Moreover, in light of the totality of the circumstances and the factors applicable under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e), the sentence is substantively reasonable. See U.S. v. Miqbel, 444 F.3d 1173, 1181-82 (9th Cir.2006) (explaining the factors to consider under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.