Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Joshua A. McKNIGHT, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-03-08
Citations: 369 F. App'x 860
Docket Number: No. 09-30119
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Joshua A. McKNIGHT, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 369
Pages: 860–860

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Joshua A. McKNIGHT, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 09-30119.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 16, 2010.
Filed March 8, 2010.
Paulette Lynn Stewart, Assistant U.S., USHE-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Helena, MT, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Daniel Donovan, Esquire, Thompson, Potts & Donovan, P.C., Great Falls, MT, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, 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
Joshua A. McKnight appeals from the 98-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for possession of stolen firearms, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(j). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
McKnight contends that the district court erred at sentencing by failing to: (1) consider all of the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a); (2) make an individualized determination based on the facts presented; and (3) provide an adequate explanation for his sentence. He also contends that his sentence is unreasonable in light of his mitigating personal circumstances and the sentence imposed on his co-defendant. The record indicates that the district court did not procedurally err and that McKnight's sentence is substantively reasonable. See Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 356-59, 127 S.Ct. 2456, 168 L.Ed.2d 203 (2007); see also 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.