Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Paul Charles STEEVES, Defendant-Appellant; United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Paul Charles Steeves, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-03-11
Citations: 269 F. App'x 690
Docket Number: Nos. 07-10314, 07-10315
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Paul Charles STEEVES, Defendant—Appellant. United States of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Paul Charles Steeves, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 269
Pages: 690–691

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Paul Charles STEEVES, Defendant—Appellant. United States of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Paul Charles Steeves, Defendant—Appellant.
Nos. 07-10314, 07-10315.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 26, 2008 .
Filed March 11, 2008.
Barbara J. Valliere, Esq., Elise Becker, Esq., USSF — Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Francisco, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Hilary A. Fox, Esq., FPDCA — Federal Public Defender’s Office, Oakland, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: BEEZER, FERNANDEZ, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
In these consolidated appeals, Paul Charles Steeves appeals from the 27-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for mailing threatening communications, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 876(c), and false information and hoaxes, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1038(a)(1)(A). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Steeves contends that the district court imposed an unreasonable sentence because it failed to properly weigh the factors contained in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), especially the need to protect the public. We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion, and that the 27-month sentence is reasonable. See Gall v. United States, — U.S.-, 128 S.Ct. 586, 596-98,169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.