Case ID: f-appx_320/html/0602-01.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. Fonda K. MURGIA, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 08-10177.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted March 18, 2009.
    
    Filed March 25, 2009.
    Sharon Kathleen Sexton, Assistant U.S., U.S. Attorney’s Office, Phoenix, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Joy Bertrand, Joy Bertrand, Esq., L.L.C., Scottsdale, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: LEAVY, HAWKINS, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Fonda K. Murgia appeals from the 21-month sentence imposed following revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Murgia contends that the district court erred by relying upon impermissible factors in fashioning a sentence consecutive to her state sentence. The record, however, demonstrates that the district court did not rely upon impermissible factors. See United States v. Simtob, 485 F.3d 1058, 1062-64 (9th Cir.2007). Murgia also contends that her sentence is unreasonable in light of the factors listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and that imposing the sentence to run consecutive to her state court sentence makes her sentence greater than necessary to meet the sentencing goals of § 3553(a). We conclude that the district court did not proeedurally err, and that the sentence is reasonable. See United States v. Carty, 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 9th Cir. R. 36-3.