Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Solomon Bitton SIMTOB, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-03-24
Citations: 313 F. App'x 6
Docket Number: No. 07-30292
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Solomon Bitton SIMTOB, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before: FISHER and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges, and EZRA, United States District Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 313
Pages: 6–7

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Solomon Bitton SIMTOB, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 07-30292.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 18, 2008.
Filed March 24, 2008.
Carl E. Rostad, USGF — Office of the U.S. Attorney, Great Falls, MT, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
David F. Ness, FDMT — Federal Defenders of Montana, Great Falls, MT, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: FISHER and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges, and EZRA, United States District Judge.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. 34(a)(2).
Honorable David A. Ezra, United States District Judge for the District of Hawaii, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
The district court's 36-month revocation sentence was reasonable. The district court made clear that it was not placing any special emphasis on the seriousness of Simtob's criminal conduct. See United States v. Simtob, 485. F.3d 1058, 1063-64 (9th Cir.2007). Instead, the district court relied primarily on Simtob's "continued pattern of unlawful behavior," a permissible consideration under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e). Id. at 1063. Given Simtob's extensive criminal history and the likelihood of recidivism, we cannot say that the sentence was unreasonable. See generally Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007).
Because the government properly raised its objection to Simtob's failure to file a timely notice of appeal, we are required to dismiss the portion of Simtob's appeal challenging his 2005 conviction and sentence. See United States v. Sadler, 480 F.3d 932, 937-40 (9th Cir.2007).
AFFIRMED in part; DISMISSED in part.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.