Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Chase Ray STRIKE, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-11-08
Citations: 458 F. App'x 600
Docket Number: No. 10-30376
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Chase Ray STRIKE, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: O’SCANNLAIN, TASHIMA, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 458
Pages: 600–601

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Chase Ray STRIKE, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 10-30376.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 8, 2011.
Filed Nov. 8, 2011.
James Edmund Seykora, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Leif Johnson, Assistant U.S., USBI-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Billings, MT, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Lisa Jeannine Bazant, Billings, MT, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, TASHIMA, 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
Chase Ray Strike appeals from the 160-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute ecstasy, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Strike contends that the district court erred by failing adequately to explain the sentence, and that the sentence imposed is greater than necessary to achieve the statutory goals of sentencing. The record reflects that the district court considered Strike's arguments in support of his request for a sentence below the Guidelines range, and provided a well-reasoned and thorough analysis of the relevant sentencing factors before concluding that the circumstances were insufficient to warrant a sentence below the one imposed. The district court did not proeedurally err, and Strike's sentence at the lower end of the applicable Guidelines range is substantively reasonable under the totality of the circumstances and in light of the sentencing factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). 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, 992-93, 995 (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.