Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Cecil TASBY, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-05-19
Citations: 97 F. App'x 762
Docket Number: No. 03-30335
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Cecil TASBY, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 97
Pages: 762–763

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Cecil TASBY, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 03-30335.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted May 10, 2004.
Decided May 19, 2004.
Ronald W. Skibbie, Stephanie Johnson Lister, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Spokane, WA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Roger J. Peven, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Spokane, WA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: CANBY, KOZINSKI and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Cecil Tasby appeals his 24-month sentence imposed upon revocation of his term of supervised release. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 18 U.S.C. § 3742, and we affirm.
Tasby contends that the district court erred by imposing a 24-month sentence following the revocation of his supervised release where U.S.S.G. § 7B1.4 advises 5-11 months. Because the record demonstrates that the district court considered the chapter 7 policy guidelines, rejected those guidelines for specific reasons and sentenced Tasby within the statutory maximum, it did not abuse its discretion. See 18 U.S.C. § 3588(e)(3); United States v. Tadeo, 222 F.3d 623, 625-26 (9th Cir.2000) (stating chapter 7 policy statements "must be considered, but . may be freely rejected by a district court without abusing its discretion, if the sentence actually imposed is within the statutory maximum"); United States v. Musa, 220 F.3d 1096, 1099-1101 (9th Cir.2000) (holding district court did not abuse its discretion when it found defendant was a danger to the community and imposed a 3-year term of imprisonment following the revocation of supervised release, even though the guideline recommendation was 3-9 months).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.