Case ID: f-appx_295/html/0164-01.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. Lewis Lynn MITCHELL, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 07-30291.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Sept. 8, 2008.
    
    Filed Sept. 26, 2008.
    Richard A. Hosley, III, Esquire, USGF—Office of the U.S. Attorney, Great Falls, MT, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    R. Henry Branom, Jr., Esquire, FDMT—Federal Defenders of Montana, Great Falls, MT, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Lewis Lynn Mitchell appeals from the 288-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Mitchell contends that the sentence imposed is unreasonable because the district court failed to explain its assessment of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors on the record, and because the sentence is much greater than necessary to comply with the purposes of sentencing set forth in § 3553(a). Mitchell’s contention fails as the record reflects that the district court gave thorough consideration to the applicable sentencing factors, including the advisory Guidelines range and Mitchell’s prospects for rehabilitation, prior to concluding that a sentence near the mid-point of the advisory range was appropriate. The district court did not procedurally err, and the sentence is substantively reasonable. See Gall v. United States, - U.S. -, 128 S.Ct. 586, 596-97, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007); see also United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 995-96 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc).

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