Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Matilda Lucille JIM, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-06-21
Citations: 530 F. App'x 666
Docket Number: No. 12-30293
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Matilda Lucille JIM, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: TALLMAN, M. SMITH, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 530
Pages: 666–667

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Matilda Lucille JIM, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 12-30293.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 18, 2013.
Filed June 21, 2013.
Ian L. Garriques, Assistant U.S., USYA-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Yakima, WA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Matthew Campbell, Assistant Federal Public Defender, FPDWA-Federal Public Defender’s Office, Spokane, WA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: TALLMAN, M. SMITH, and HURWITZ, 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
Matilda Lucille Jim appeals from the district court's judgment and challenges the 31-month term of supervised release imposed following revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Jim contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to explain adequately the basis for imposing a 31-month term of supervised release. The record reflects that the court considered Jim's arguments and adequately explained the reasons for the sentence, including safety to the public and incentive for Jim to comply with the term of supervised release. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc).
Jim also contends that her sentence is substantively unreasonable. The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing Jim's sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). The sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, including Jim's history and the need to protect the public. See id.; 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.