Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Justin Dale TENDOY, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-03-26
Citations: 372 F. App'x 712
Docket Number: No. 09-30275
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Justin Dale TENDOY, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: SCHROEDER, PREGERSON, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 372
Pages: 712–712

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Justin Dale TENDOY, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 09-30275.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 16, 2010.
Filed March 26, 2010.
Paulette Lynn Stewart, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Helena, MT, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
David F. Ness, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Defenders of Montana, Great Falls, MT, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: SCHROEDER, PREGERSON, and RAWLINSON, 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
Justin Dale Tendoy appeals from the six-month sentence imposed upon the revocation of his probation. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Tendoy contends that the sentence is unreasonable in light of his background, history, and treatment needs, and the fact that the district court placed undue weight on the guidelines range and the need for sanctions. The record reflects that the district court committed no procedural error, and that the sentence is substantively reasonable. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 993 (9th Cir.2008) (en bane); see also United States v. Peters, 470 F.3d 907, 909 (9th Cir.2006) (per curiam) (stating that sentences imposed upon revocation of probation are reviewed for reasonableness).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.