Case ID: f-appx_361/html/0892-02.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. Jeffery MARSHALL, Defendant—Appellant.
    No. 09-30070.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Dec. 15, 2009.
    
    Filed Jan. 11, 2010.
    Rebekah J. French, Assistant U.S., USGF — Office of the U.S. Attorney, Great Falls, MT, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    James B. Obie, Obie Law, P.C., Helena, 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

Jeffery Marshall appeals from the 200-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Marshall contends that the within-Guidelines range sentence is substantively unreasonable because the district court’s application of the career offender enhancement over-represented the seriousness of his past offenses. The record reflects that the district court gave thorough consideration to Marshall’s arguments in support of his request for a sentence below the Guidelines range, but found the circumstances insufficient to warrant such a sentence. Furthermore, the district court conducted a reasoned and thorough analysis of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors prior to imposing a sentence toward the lower end of the advisory Guidelines range. Accordingly, the sentence imposed is substantively reasonable. See United States v. Stoterau, 524 F.3d 988, 999-1002 (9th Cir.2008).

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