Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Dennis Dale HUBBLE, Jr., Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-03-09
Citations: 471 F. App'x 672
Docket Number: No. 11-30227
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Dennis Dale HUBBLE, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 471
Pages: 672–673

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Dennis Dale HUBBLE, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.
No. 11-30227.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 6, 2012.
Filed March 9, 2012.
Thomas Bradley, Jo Ann Farrington, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Anchorage, AK, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Jane Martinez, Law Office of Jane B. Martinez, Anchorage, AK, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: B. FLETCHER, REINHARDT, and TASHIMA, 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
Dennis Dale Hubble, Jr. appeals from his 160-month sentence following his guilty-plea conviction for four counts of bank robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) and (d). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Hubble contends that the district court gave too much weight to its career offender finding and imposed a sentence that was greater than necessary under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). The record reflects that the district court carefully considered the section 3553(a) sentencing factors, and imposed a sentence reflective of Hubble's extensive criminal history, the need to protect the public, and Hubble's failure to be deterred. Hubble's sentence, 28 months below the advisory Sentencing Guidelines range, is substantively reasonable in light of the totality of the circumstances and the section 3553(a) sentencing factors. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 993 (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.