Case ID: f-appx_519/html/0448-02.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. Kerry P. RUTHERFORD, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 11-50246.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted May 14, 2013.
    
    Filed May 20, 2013.
    Amanda Miller Bettinelli, Curtis A. Kin, Esquire, Assistant U.S. Attorneys, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Russell S. Babcock, Law Office of Russell Babcock, San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Kerry P. Rutherford, Phoenix, AZ, pro se.
    Before: LEAVY, THOMAS, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Kerry P. Rutherford appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 54-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for access device fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1029(a)(2); and aggravated identity theft, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1028A. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Rutherford contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to consider his history and characteristics and by failing to explain adequately the sentence imposed. We review for plain error, see United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir.2010), and find none. The district court satisfied its obligations under 18 U.S.C. § 3553 by considering the evidence and arguments before imposing a sentence at the low end of the advisory Sentencing Guidelines range. See Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 358-59, 127 S.Ct. 2456, 168 L.Ed.2d 203 (2007).

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