Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Emerson Paul BIRDTAIL, II, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-10-27
Citations: 349 F. App'x 242
Docket Number: No. 09-30114
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Emerson Paul BIRDTAIL, II, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: B. FLETCHER, LEAVY, and RYMER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 349
Pages: 242–243

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Emerson Paul BIRDTAIL, II, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 09-30114.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 13, 2009.
Filed Oct. 27, 2009.
Rebekah J. French, USGF-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Great FallS, MT, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Robert Henry Branom, Jr., FDMT-Fed-eral Defenders of Montana, Great Falls, MT, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: B. FLETCHER, LEAVY, and RYMER, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed.R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Emerson Paul Birdtail, II appeals from the 31-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for assault resulting in serious bodily injury, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1153(a) and 113(a)(6). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Birdtail contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to address his arguments at sentencing and that his sentence is substantively unreasonable given his positive life changes. The record reflects that the district court did not procedurally err, and that the sentence is substantively reasonable. See 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.