Case ID: f-appx_398/html/0249-01.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. Richard BUSHYHEAD, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 10-30043.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Sept. 13, 2010.
    
    Filed Oct. 4, 2010.
    James Edmund Seykora, Esquire, USBI-Offiee of the U.S. Attorney, Billings, MT, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Steven C. Babcock, Assistant Federal Public Defender, FDMT-Federal Defenders of Montana, Billings, MT, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Richard Bushyhead appeals from the 10-month sentence imposed upon revocation of his supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Bushyhead contends that the district court procedurally erred at sentencing by failing (1) to consider the proper factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a); and (2) to adequately explain the sentence. The record reflects that the district court considered the proper sentencing factors, adequately explained the sentence, and did not otherwise procedurally err. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992-93 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc); see also 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e).

Bushyhead also contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable. In light of the totality of the circumstances, the sentence within the Guidelines range is substantively reasonable. See Carty, 520 F.3d at 993.

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