Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Richard Roy BAXTER, Defendant-Appellant; United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Richard Roy Baxter, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-11-24
Citations: 301 F. App'x 672
Docket Number: Nos. 07-10600, 08-10009
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Richard Roy BAXTER, Defendant-Appellant. United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Richard Roy Baxter, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 301
Pages: 672–673

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Richard Roy BAXTER, Defendant-Appellant. United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Richard Roy Baxter, Defendant-Appellant.
Nos. 07-10600, 08-10009.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 13, 2008.
Filed Nov. 24, 2008.
Darcy A. Cerow, AUSA, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Phoenix, AZ, for PlaintiffAppellee.
Tyrone Mitchell, Esq., Phoenix, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
In these consolidated appeals, Richard Roy Baxter appeals from the 20-month sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release in District Court Case No. 01-00748. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Baxter contends that the district court erred at sentencing by failing to consider the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). He also contends that his sentence is unreasonable in light of those factors. We conclude that the district court did not commit procedural error, and that Baxter's sentence is substantively reasonable. See Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 127 S.Ct. 2456, 2468-69, 168 L.Ed.2d 203 (2007); Gall v. United States, — U.S.-, 128 S.Ct. 586, 598-602, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007); see also United States v. Simtob, 485 F.3d 1058, 1062-63 (9th Cir.2007).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.