Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michael Robert CLARY, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-05-02
Citations: 276 F. App'x 662
Docket Number: No. 06-30340
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Michael Robert CLARY, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 276
Pages: 662–663

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Michael Robert CLARY, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 06-30340.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 22, 2008.
Filed May 2, 2008.
Helen J. Brunner, Esq., Michael J. Lang, Esq., USSE — Office of the U.S. Attorney, Seattle, WA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Timothy R. Lohraff, Esq., Federal Public Defender’s Office Western District of Washington, Suzanne Lee Elliott, Esq., Law Offices of Suzanne Lee Elliott the Hoge Building, Seattle, WA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: GRABER, FISHER, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Michael Robert Clary appeals from the 64-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for being a felon in possession of firearms, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), and for making a false statement in connection with the acquisition of firearms, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(6). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Clary contends that the district court presumed that a sentence within the Guidelines range was appropriate in violation of Rita v. United States, — U.S. -, 127 S.Ct. 2456, 2465,168 L.Ed.2d 203 (2007). This contention is belied by the record.
Clary also contends that his sentence is unreasonable because the district court's discussion of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors was inadequate. We conclude that the district court did not procedurally err. See id. at 2469; see also United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 995-97 (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.