Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Eliza H.R. BIGHETTY, a.k.a. Eliza Batarseh, a.k.a. Eliza Hume Rambo Kruse, a.k.a. Eliza Shuys, a.k.a. Eliza Steward/Stewart, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-10-28
Citations: 456 F. App'x 663
Docket Number: No. 11-30009
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Eliza H.R. BIGHETTY, a.k.a. Eliza Batarseh, a.k.a. Eliza Hume Rambo Kruse, a.k.a. Eliza Shuys, a.k.a. Eliza Steward/Stewart, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before: TROTT, GOULD, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 456
Pages: 663–664

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Eliza H.R. BIGHETTY, a.k.a. Eliza Batarseh, a.k.a. Eliza Hume Rambo Kruse, a.k.a. Eliza Shuys, a.k.a. Eliza Steward/Stewart, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 11-30009.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 25, 2011.
Filed Oct. 28, 2011.
Michael Symington Morgan, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Seattle, WA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Lynn Hartfield, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Seattle, WA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: TROTT, GOULD, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Eliza H.R. Bighetty appeals from the 48-month sentence imposed following her guilty-plea convictions for aggravated identity theft, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1028A, and for theft of government funds, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 641. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Bighetty contends that her sentence is substantively unreasonable. The record reflects that Bighetty's within-Guidelines sentence is reasonable in light of the totality of the circumstances and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.