Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Edward Keith STRILEY, Jr., Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-01-19
Citations: 466 F. App'x 643
Docket Number: No. 11-10129
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Edward Keith STRILEY, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 466
Pages: 643–644

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Edward Keith STRILEY, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.
No. 11-10129.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 17, 2012.
Filed Jan. 19, 2012.
Phillip Smith, USLV-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Las Vegas, NV, Robert Lawrence Ellman, Esquire, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Las Vegas, NV, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Brenda Weksler, Esquire, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Las Vegas, NV, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: LEAVY, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, 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
Edward Keith Striley, Jr. appeals from the 151-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for bank robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Striley contends the sentence is substantively unreasonable because the district court failed to exercise its discretion to vary from the career offender Guideline, which he argues is not supported by empirical evidence or national experience. The record reflects that the district court was aware of its discretion to depart from the Guideline, and in light of the totality of the circumstances and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors, the bottom-of-the-Guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 993 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc); United States v. Henderson, 649 F.3d 955, 964 (9th Cir.2011) ("District courts are not obligated to vary from the [career offender] Guidelines on policy grounds if they do not have, in fact, a policy disagreement with them.").
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.