Case ID: f-appx_470/html/0679-01.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. Justin Duane CORBRAY, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 11-30185.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 21, 2012.
    
    Filed March 5, 2012.
    Gregory M. Shogren, Esquire, Assistant U.S. Attorney, USYA-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Yakima, WA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Rebecca Louise Pennell, Esquire, Assistant Federal Public Defender, FDWAIDFederal Defenders of Eastern Washington & Idaho, Yakima, WA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: FERNANDEZ, McKEOWN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Justin Duane Corbray appeals from the 24-month sentence imposed following the revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Corbray contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to calculate the applicable Sentencing Guidelines range. This contention lacks merit as the record reflects that the district court adopted the undisputed Guidelines range calculated in the petition to revoke supervised release, and provided sufficient reasons for imposing a sentence at the statutory maximum. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 993 (9th Cir.2008).

Corbray also contends that the sentence imposed is substantively unreasonable. The sentence is substantively reasonable under the totality of the circumstances and in light of the sentencing factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. §§ 3553(a) and 3553(e). See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007); United States v. Miqbel, 444 F.3d 1173, 1182 (9th Cir.2006).

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