Case ID: f-appx_608/html/0505-01.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 Robert SORRELL, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 14-30159.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 22, 2015.
    
    Filed June 25, 2015.
    Matthew F. Duggan, Assistant U.S., USSP-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Spokane, WA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Nicolas Vernon Vieth, Esquire, Vieth. Law Offices, CHTD., Coeur D’ Alene, ID, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: HAWKINS, GRABER, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. Appellant’s motion to submit this case on the briefs is granted. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

. James Robert Sorrell appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 18-month sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Sorrell contends that the district court erred by relying on impermissible sentencing factors and by failing to explain adequately the sentence imposed. We review for plain error, see United States v. Miqbel, 444 F.3d 1173, 1176 (9th Cir.2006), and find none. The record reflects that the district court considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) sentencing factors, did not consider impermissible sentencing factors, and sufficiently explained its reasons for imposing the above-Guidelines sentence. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (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.