Case ID: f-appx_361/html/0889-01.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. Dean John PERRI, Defendant-Appellant.
    Nos. 09-30140, 09-30141.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Dec. 15, 2009.
    
    Filed Jan. 11, 2010.
    Michelle Kerin, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Portland, OR, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Francesca Freccero, FPDOR - Federal Public Defender’s Office, Portland, OR, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

In these consolidated appeals, Dean John Perri appeals from the consecutive three-month sentences imposed upon revocation of supei-vised release. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Perri contends that the sentence is unreasonable because the district court failed to consider all of the factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e), impermissibly relied upon factors omitted from § 3583(e), and placed undue weight on his criminal history. The record reflects that the district court did not improperly rely upon factors omitted under § 3583(e), considered the appropriate sentencing factors, and that the sentence below the guidelines range is substantively reasonable. See United States v. Miqbel, 444 F.3d 1173, 1176, 1181-82 (9th Cir.2006) (stating that sentences imposed upon supervised release are reviewed for reasonableness and discussing the factors a district court may consider upon imposition of such sentence).

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