Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Robert Earl McALLISTER, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-02-22
Citations: 468 F. App'x 755
Docket Number: No. 10-50366
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Robert Earl McALLISTER, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: FERNANDEZ, McKEOWN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 468
Pages: 755–756

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Robert Earl McALLISTER, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 10-50366.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 21, 2012.
Filed Feb. 22, 2012.
Amanda Miller Bettinelli, Assistant U.S., Michael J. Raphael, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los An-geles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Gary Paul Burcham, Burcham & Zug-man, San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: FERNANDEZ, McKEOWN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. Appellant. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Robert Earl McAllister appeals from the 36-month sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
McAllister contends that the district court erred by failing: (1) to consider probative information from two mental health evaluations, and (2) to provide a reasoned basis for rejecting the conclusion of the evaluations. The record reflects that the district court fully considered the evaluations and adequately explained its conclusion that any mental impairments did not cause McAllister to commit the bank robbery. The district court did not procedurally err, and McAllister's sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the totality of the circumstances and the relevant 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007); United States v. Simtob, 485 F.3d 1058, 1063 (9th Cir.2007) (explaining the standard for sentencing upon revocation of supervised release).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.