Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jason Dean SMITH, Defendant-Appellant; United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jason Dean Smith, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-07-02
Citations: 286 F. App'x 961
Docket Number: Nos. 07-30256, 07-30257
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jason Dean SMITH, Defendant-Appellant. United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jason Dean Smith, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 286
Pages: 961–961

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jason Dean SMITH, Defendant-Appellant. United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jason Dean Smith, Defendant-Appellant.
Nos. 07-30256, 07-30257.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 18, 2008.
Filed July 2, 2008.
Helen J. Brunner, Esq., Andrew C. Friedman, Esq., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Seattle, WA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Suzanne Lee Elliott, Esq., Law Offices of Suzanne Lee Elliott, Seattle, WA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: REINHARDT, LEAVY, and CLIFTON, 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 cases, Jason Dean Smith appeals from the 78-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea convictions for conspiracy to distribute marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C) and 846, and exporting defense articles without a license, in violation of 22 U.S.C. § 2778. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Smith contends that his sentence is unreasonable because the district court judge failed to consider the pain, suffering and injury caused by improper medical care he received while in prison. We conclude that there was no procedural error and that Smith's sentence is substantively reasonable. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 995-96 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.