Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Christopher Kyle NESS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-01-16
Citations: 218 F. App'x 620
Docket Number: No. 06-10085
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Christopher Kyle NESS, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 218
Pages: 620–621

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Christopher Kyle NESS, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 06-10085.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 8, 2007.
Filed Jan. 16, 2007.
Frederick A. Battista, Ausa, USPX— Office of the U.S. Attorney, Phoenix, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Christopher Kyle Ness, Florence, AZ, pro se.
David S. Eisenberg, Phoenix, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: ALARCÓN, HALL, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Christopher Kyle Ness appeals from the 16-month and 20-day sentence imposed following revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review the sentence for reasonableness, see United States v. Miqbel, 444 F.3d 1173, 1176 & n. 5 (9th Cir.2006), and we affirm.
Ness contends that the district court erred by failing to consider educational and vocational training pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(D), when imposing a consecutive sentence following revocation of supervised release. Because the record reflects that the district court properly weighed and considered factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), we conclude that Ness' sentence was reasonable. See United States v. Mix, 457 F.3d 906, 912 (9th Cir.2006) ("A district court is not required to refer to each factor listed in § 3553(a)"); United States v. Marcial-Santiago, 447 F.3d 715, 719 (9th Cir.) (affirming where the district court "gave thoughtful attention to factors recognized in § 3553(a) and exercised sound discretion"), cert. denied sub nom. Acosta-Franco v. United States, — U.S. -, 127 S.Ct. 309, 166 L.Ed.2d 232 (2006).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.