Case ID: f-appx_361/html/0893-01.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. Byron B. YELLOWBEAR, Jr., Defendant—Appellant.
    No. 09-30078.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Dec. 17, 2009.
    
    Filed Jan. 11, 2010.
    Lori Anne Harper Suek, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Billings, MT, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Steven C. Babcock, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Defenders of Montana, Billings, MT, 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

Byron B. Yellowbear, Jr. appeals from the 180-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for aggravated sexual abuse, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1153(a) and 2241(a)(1). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Yellowbear contends that the district court erred by failing to adequately explain the sentence and by using a disputed fact when imposing the sentence. The record reflects that the district court expressly justified the sentence in terms of the applicable § 3553(a) factors. Furthermore, there is nothing in the record to indicate that the district court relied on a disputed fact when imposing the sentence. The district court did not procedurally err. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 49-50, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007).

Yellowbear also contends that the district court’s imposition of a sentence toward the high end of the advisory Guidelines range was greater than necessary to comply with the purposes of sentencing set forth in § 3553(a). We conclude that the sentence is substantively reasonable. 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.