Case ID: f-appx_198/html/0628-01.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. Luke JERNIGAN, Defendant—Appellant.
    No. 05-10191.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Aug. 21, 2006.
    
    Decided Aug. 24, 2006.
    
      Thomas C. Simon, Esq., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Phoenix, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Neil Labarge, Phoenix, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: GOODWIN, REINHARDT, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
      This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Luke Jernigan appeals from the sentence imposed upon the revocation of his supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for reasonableness a district court’s imposition of a sentence upon revocation, see United States v. Miqbel, 444 F.3d 1173, 1176 (9th Cir.2006), and we affirm.

Jernigan contends that the district court was improperly influenced by unproven allegations in the Probation Office’s sentencing memorandum. This contention, however, is unsupported by the record. Further, the district court properly considered the applicable Chapter 7 Guidelines range, as well as the relevant sentencing factors of 18 U.S.C. § 3553, as incorporated by 18 U.S.C. § 3583, before imposing a 6-month term of imprisonment and a 30-month term of supervised release. We conclude that the sentence was reasonable. See Miqbel, 444 F.3d at 1176.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.