Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Timothy Bruce RUDDLE, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-03-29
Citations: 372 F. App'x 765
Docket Number: No. 09-30189
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Timothy Bruce RUDDLE, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: SCHROEDER, PREGERSON, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 372
Pages: 765–766

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Timothy Bruce RUDDLE, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 09-30189.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 16, 2010.
Filed March 29, 2010.
Marcia Kay Hurd, Esquire, Assistant U.S., USBI-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Billings, MT, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Evangelo Arvanetes, Assistant Federal Public Defender, FDMT-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
Timothy Bruce Ruddle appeals from his 210-month sentence imposed following a guilty-plea conviction for receipt of child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(2). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Ruddle contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing adequately to explain the sentence imposed and that the sentence, at the high-end of the Sentencing Guidelines, is substantively unreasonable. The record reflects that the district court adequately explained the sentence. See United States v. Perez-Perez, 512 F.3d 514, 516-17 (9th Cir.2008). Further, in light of the totality of the circumstances and the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), the sentence is not unreasonable. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 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.