Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michael MCLOONE, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-11-23
Citations: 671 F. App'x 448
Docket Number: No. 15-30344
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michael MCLOONE, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: LEAVY, BERZON and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 671
Pages: 448–448

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michael MCLOONE, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 15-30344
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted November 16, 2016
Filed November 23, 2016
Timothy D. Edmonds, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Jo Ann Farrington, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Anchorage, AK, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Darrel J. Gardner, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Daniel F. Poulson, Federal Public Defenders, Anchorage, AK, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: LEAVY, BERZON and MURGUIA, 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
Michael McLoone appeals from the district court's judgment and challenges the 24-month sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
McLoone contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable in light of his mental health issues and the district court's belief that no period of incarceration would deter him. The court did not abuse its discretion in imposing McLoone'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 section 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, including McLoone's criminal history and the need to protect the public. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51, 128 S.Ct. 586 (2007). Moreover, the record reflects that the district court sufficiently explained its reasons for imposing the within-Guidelines sentence. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.