Case ID: f-appx_535/html/0637-01.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. Robin BOLTON, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 12-30369.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted July 24, 2013.
    
    Filed Aug. 1, 2013.
    Leif Johnson, J. Bishop Grewell, Assistant U.S. Attorneys, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Billings, MT, for Plaintiff-Appel-lee.
    Lisa Jeannine Bazant, Billings, MT, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: ALARCÓN, CLIFTON, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Robin Bolton appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 18-month sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Bolton contends that the district court erred by failing to (i) explain the sentence sufficiently to permit meaningful appellate review and (ii) discuss the applicable Sentencing Guidelines range and applicable 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors. We review for plain error, see United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir.2010), and find none. The court considered the advisory Guidelines and section 3553(a) sentencing factors, and adequately explained the sentence.

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