Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Vino BURNETTE, Jr., Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-03-10
Citations: 420 F. App'x 705
Docket Number: No. 10-10402
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Vino BURNETTE, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: FARRIS, LEAVY, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 420
Pages: 705–705

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Vino BURNETTE, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.
No. 10-10402.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 8, 2011.
Filed March 10, 2011.
Vincent Q. Kirby, Assistant U.S., USPX-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Phoenix, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Daniel L. Kaplan, Assistant Federal Public Defender, FPDAZ-Federal Public Defender’s Office, Phoenix, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: FARRIS, LEAVY, and BYBEE, 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
Vino Burnette, Jr. appeals from the 18-month sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Burnette contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to adequately explain and identify sufficiently compelling reasons for the sentence and by misidentifying the applicable statutory maximum sentence. The record reflects that the district court adequately explained its reasons and did not otherwise procedurally err. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 991-93 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc).
Burnette also contends that the sentence is substantively unreasonable in light of his mitigating personal circumstances. The record reflects that the 18-month sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the totality of the circumstances. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51-52, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007); see also Carty, 520 F.3d at 993.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.