Case ID: f-appx_407/html/0251-01.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. Segrria Lamose BROOME, Defendant—Appellant.
    No. 10-50165.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Dec. 14, 2010.
    
    Filed Jan. 5, 2011.
    Sheri Pym, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Riverside, CA, Michael J. Raphael, Esquire, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Ami Sheth, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Kathryn Ann Young, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Segrria Lamose Broome appeals from the 24-month sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Broome contends that the sentence was substantively unreasonable because, among other things, the district court did not give sufficient weight to his mental illness. The record reflects that the district court considered Broome’s arguments and provided a reasoned basis for the sentence. In light of the totality of the circumstances, the district court’s sentence within the Guidelines range is substantively reasonable. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 993 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc). Moreover, the district court did not procedurally err. See id.

Broome’s request to correct the caption to reflect that his first name is spelled “Segrria” rather than “Seggria” is granted.

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