Case ID: f-appx_249/html/0630-01.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. James E. HAMILTON, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 05-50325.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Sept. 24, 2007.
    
    Filed Oct. 1, 2007.
    
      Laura Duffy, Esq., Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Mark F. Adams, Esq., San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

James E. Hamilton appeals from the 188-month sentence imposed following his plea of guilty to conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 846. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for reasonableness, United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 261, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), and we affirm.

Hamilton contends that his sentence is unreasonable because it is greater than necessary to achieve the goals of sentencing set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). However, the record indicates that the sentencing judge articulated a “reasoned basis for exercising his own legal decisionmaking authority” to impose a sentence at the low end of the Guidelines range. Rita v. United States, — U.S. -, 127 S.Ct. 2456, 2468, 168 L.Ed.2d 203 (2007). We therefore conclude that the sentence is not unreasonable. See id. at 2470.

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