Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Seth Eagle RICHESON, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-11-26
Citations: 301 F. App'x 729
Docket Number: No. 07-30479
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Seth Eagle RICHESON, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: ALARCÓN, LEAVY, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 301
Pages: 729–730

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Seth Eagle RICHESON, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 07-30479.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 24, 2008.
Filed Nov. 26, 2008.
Jo Ann Farrington, Audrey Jane Renschen, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Anchorage, AK, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Sue Ellen Tatter, Esquire, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Anchorage, AK, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: ALARCÓN, LEAVY, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Seth Eagle Richeson appeals from the 51-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for possession of child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(4)(B), (b)(2). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Richeson contends that the district court procedurally erred by: (1) failing to properly consider the nature and circumstances of his offense; (2) failing to give adequate weight to his history and characteristics; and (3) treating the Guidelines range as presumptively reasonable. These contentions are not supported by the record. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 991-95 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc). We further conclude that, in light of the totality of the circumstances, the sentence is substantively reasonable. See id. at 993.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provid ed by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.