Case ID: f-appx_310/html/0171-01.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. Richard Alexander MORALES, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 08-50005.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Jan. 13, 2009.
    
    Filed Jan. 26, 2009.
    Michael J. Raphael, Esq., USLA — Office of the U.S. Attorney, Criminal Division, Brian R. Michael, United State Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Charles C. Brown, Esq., FPDCA — Federal Public Defender’s Office, Los Angeles, CA, for DefendanL-Appellant.
    Before: O’SCANNLAIN, BYBEE, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Richard Alexander Morales appeals from the sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for possession of child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(5)(B). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and we affirm.

Morales contends that the district court committed procedural error by failing to adequately explain its decision to impose a 25-year term of supervised release, and that the supervised release term renders his sentence substantively unreasonable under the totality of the circumstances. We conclude that the district court did not procedurally err, and that the sentence is substantively reasonable. See United States v. Daniels, 541 F.3d 915, 921-24 (9th Cir.2008).

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