Case ID: f-appx_399/html/0238-01.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. Ronald E. SMITH, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 09-30357.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Oct. 6, 2010.
    
    Filed Oct. 8, 2010.
    Leif Johnson, Assistant U.S., James Edmund Seykora, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Marcia Kay Hurd, Esquire, Assistant U.S., USBI-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Billings, MT, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Matthew J. Wald, Esquire, Wald Law Office, PLLC, Hardin, MT, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, THOMAS and M. 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

The district court considered the correct guideline range and adequately explained its decision to impose a stricter sentence. Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32(h) does not apply to the variance. Irizarry v. United States, 553 U.S. 708, 714, 128 S.Ct. 2198, 171 L.Ed.2d 28 (2008). Even if it did, the government’s re-sentencing memorandum gave the defendant adequate notice of the grounds for lengthening his sentence. See Fed.R.Crim.P. 32(h); cf. United States v. Cruz-Perez, 567 F.3d 1142, 1147 (9th Cir.2009).

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