Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Brian Lee COX, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-10-28
Citations: 350 F. App'x 133
Docket Number: Nos. 08-10571, 08-10572
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Brian Lee COX, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: B. FLETCHER, LEAVY, and RYMER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 350
Pages: 133–134

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Brian Lee COX, Defendant-Appellant.
Nos. 08-10571, 08-10572.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 13, 2009.
Filed Oct. 28, 2009.
John Robert Lopez, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Phoenix, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Tyrone Mitchell, Esquire, Tyrone Mitchell, P.C., Phoenix, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: B. FLETCHER, LEAVY, and RYMER, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
In these consolidated appeals, Brian Lee Cox appeals from the consecutive 24-month sentences imposed following revocation of the concurrent terms of supervised release he was serving following guilty-plea convictions for bank robbery and escape. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Cox contends that the district court erred by imposing a sentence at the statutory maximum, well above the advisory Guidelines range, without sufficient consideration of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. He also contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable. The record reflects that the district court's explanation for imposing the sentence was sufficient, and that Cox's sentence is reasonable. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 128 S.Ct. 586, 596-97, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007); see also United States v. Simtob, 485 F.3d 1058, 1062-63 (9th Cir.2007).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.