Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Monroe James EZELL, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-12-31
Citations: 503 F. App'x 515
Docket Number: No. 12-30061
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Monroe James EZELL, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 503
Pages: 515–515

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Monroe James EZELL, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 12-30061.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 19, 2012.
Filed Dec. 31, 2012.
Nicholas W. Brown, Helen J. Brunner, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Seattle, WA, for Plaintiff-Appel-lee.
Kyana Stephens, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Seattle, WA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, 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
Monroe James Ezell appeals from the district court's judgment and challenges the 60-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Ezell contends that the district court erred by lengthening his sentence based on his need for rehabilitation. Because Ezell failed to raise this objection at sentencing, we review for plain error. See United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir.2010). The court did not plainly err because the record reflects that it did not lengthen the sentence based on Ezell's rehabilitative needs. See Tapia v. United States, — U.S.-, 131 S.Ct. 2382, 2392, 180 L.Ed.2d 357 (2011) ("A court commits no error by discussing the opportunities for rehabilitation within prison or the benefits of specific treatment or training programs.").
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.