Case ID: f-appx_426/html/0529-01.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. Alfred PETERSON, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 10-30260.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted April 5, 2011.
    
    Filed April 11, 2011.
    James Edmund Seykora, Esquire, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Billings, MT, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    David Merchant, Federal Defenders of Montana, Billings, MT, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: B. FLETCHER, CLIFTON, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Alfred Peterson appeals from the 13-month sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Peterson contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to calculate the Guideline range. This contention is belied by the record.

Peterson also contends that the district court failed to consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and failed to provide an adequate explanation of the sentence. Contrary to Peterson’s contention, the record reflects that the district court considered the relevant § 3553(a) factors. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e); see also United States v. Miqbel, 444 F.3d 1173, 1181-82 (9th Cir.2006). In addition, the district court considered Peterson’s health issues, and the context and record make clear the district court’s reasoning. See Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 359, 127 S.Ct. 2456, 168 L.Ed.2d 203 (2007).

Moreover, in light of the totality of the circumstances and the factors applicable under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e), the sentence is substantively reasonable. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 993 (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.