Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Timothy James BUTLER, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-12-13
Citations: 405 F. App'x 259
Docket Number: No. 09-30362
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Timothy James BUTLER, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: GOODWIN, KYMER, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 405
Pages: 259–260

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Timothy James BUTLER, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 09-30362.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 6, 2010.
Filed Dec. 13, 2010.
Anthony G. Hall, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Aaron Nicholas Lucoff, Esquire, As sistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Boise, ID, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Greg S. Silvey, Kuna, ID, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: GOODWIN, KYMER, and GRABER, 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
Timothy James Butler appeals from the 160-month sentence imposed upon resentencing following a successful 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Butler contends that the district court procedurally erred by limiting its consideration of his post-sentence rehabilitation in order to avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities. The record reflects that the district court fully considered Butler's post-sentence rehabilitation, in conjunction with the remaining 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors, when it granted a 21-month downward variance from the advisory Guidelines range. See United States v. Green, 152 F.3d 1202, 1207-08 (9th Cir.1998) (per curiam). The district court did not procedurally err, and the sentence imposed is substantively reasonable in light of the totality of the circumstances. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (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 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.