Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Joshua P. SCARBOROUGH, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-01-21
Citations: 411 F. App'x 113
Docket Number: No. 10-30040
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Joshua P. SCARBOROUGH, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: BEEZER, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 411
Pages: 113–113

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Joshua P. SCARBOROUGH, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 10-30040.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 10, 2011.
Filed Jan. 21, 2011.
Edward Eric Zink, Esquire, Special Assistant U.S. Attorney, USBI-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Billings, MT, for PlaintiffAppellee.
Steven C. Babcock, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Defenders of Montana, Billings, MT, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: BEEZER, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, 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
Joshua P. Scarborough appeals the 60-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea convictions for theft of firearms from a federal licensee in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(u), 2. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Scarborough contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable. The record reflects that the 60-month sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the totality of the circumstances and the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51-52, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007); see also United States v. Orlando, 553 F.3d 1235, 1239 (9th Cir.2009) (upholding upward variance where the district court found the guideline sentence insufficient to provide the necessary deterrence, to address the need for the defendant to learn respect for the law, and to reflect the nature of the defendant's criminal history).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.