Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Tami L. CURLEY, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-03-08
Citations: 419 F. App'x 718
Docket Number: No. 10-30060
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Tami L. CURLEY, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before: CANBY, FERNANDEZ, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 419
Pages: 718–718

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Tami L. CURLEY, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 10-30060.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 15, 2010.
Filed March 8, 2011.
Kris Allen McLean, Esquire, Assistant U.S., USMI-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Missoula, MT, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Andrew J. Nelson, Esquire, Assistant Federal Public Defender, FDMT-Federal Defenders of Montana, Missoula, MT, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: CANBY, FERNANDEZ, 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
Tami L. Curley appeals from the 51-month sentence imposed following her guilty-plea convictions for tax evasion, in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7201, and wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Curley contends that her above-Guidelines range sentence is substantively unreasonable because it was greater than necessary to accomplish the statutory purposes of sentencing. The district court emphasized Curley's history and characteristics and the nature and circumstances of the offense before concluding that the advisory Guidelines range was insufficient to provide an appropriate sentence. The sentence is substantively reasonable under the totality of the circumstances, and in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 56-60, 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 9th Cir. R. 36-3.