Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. David BURLESON, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-03-29
Citations: 372 F. App'x 763
Docket Number: No. 09-50294
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. David BURLESON, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: SCHROEDER, PREGERSON, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 372
Pages: 763–763

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. David BURLESON, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 09-50294.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 16, 2010.
Filed March 29, 2010.
Corey G. Lee, Esquire, Michael J. Raphael, Esquire, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appel-lee.
Davina T. Chen, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: SCHROEDER, PREGERSON, and RAWLINSON, 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
David Burleson appeals from his 16-month sentence imposed following a guilty-plea conviction for unlawful possession of Postal Keys, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1704. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Burleson contends that his sentence four months above the United States Sentencing Guidelines range is substantively unreasonable. A review of the record demonstrates that the district court did not procedurally err and the sentence is not substantively unreasonable in light of the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3558(a) and the totality of the circumstances. 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. Truong, 587 F.3d 1049, 1052 (9th Cir.2009) (per curiam) (affirming an above-Guidelines sentence where the district court "sufficiently explained that the Guidelines did not account for [defendant's] particular type of recidivism").
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.