Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Randy James JANGULA, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-01-04
Citations: 407 F. App'x 234
Docket Number: Nos. 10-30044, 10-30045
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Randy James JANGULA, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 407
Pages: 234–235

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Randy James JANGULA, Defendant—Appellant.
Nos. 10-30044, 10-30045.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 14, 2010.
Filed Jan. 4, 2011.
Carl E. Rostad, Assistant U.S., USGF-Offiee of the U.S. Attorney, Great Falls, MT, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
David F. Ness, Assistant Federal Public Defender, FDMT-Federal Defenders of Montana, Great Falls, MT, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and CLIFTON, 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
In these consolidated cases, Randy James Jangula appeals from the 24-month sentence imposed following the revocation of his supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Jangula contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable. In light of the totality of the circumstances, the district court's sentence is substantively reasonable. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 993 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc). Moreover, the district court did not procedurally err. See id.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.