Case ID: f-appx_333/html/0310-02.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. Monta Lamont HARRIS, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 08-50289.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted Sept. 14, 2009.
    
    Filed Oct. 5, 2009.
    April Anita Christine, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Michael J. Raphael, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Mark Yanis, Huntington Beach, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: SILVERMAN, RAWLINSON, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Monta Lamont Harris appeals from the 135-month sentence imposed following a guilty-plea conviction for conspiracy, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371; armed bank robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2113(a)(d); and use of firearm during a crime of violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Harris contends that the district court erred by applying § 924(c)(l)(D)(ii) to run his sentences for bank robbery and conspiracy consecutive to an undischarged state prison sentence. The record reflects that the district court properly justified its choice of the sentence as a whole pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 3584(b) and 3553(a). See United States v. Fifield, 432 F.3d 1056, 1064-66 (9th Cir.2005). The district court did not procedurally err and the sentence imposed is reasonable. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 128 S.Ct. 586, 596-97, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007); see also United States v. Catty, 520 F.3d 984, 991-93 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc).

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