Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Oscar James MITCHELL, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-11-24
Citations: 301 F. App'x 681
Docket Number: No. 07-10535
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Oscar James MITCHELL, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 301
Pages: 681–682

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Oscar James MITCHELL, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 07-10535.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 13, 2008.
Filed Nov. 24, 2008.
Craig S. Denney, Downey Brand, LLP, Elizabeth Olson, U.S. Attorney, Reno, NV, Robert Lawrence Ellman, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Las Vegas, NV, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Mike K. Powell, Esquire, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Reno, NV, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Oscar James Mitchell appeals from the 151-month sentence imposed upon resentencing following his guilty-plea conviction for bank robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Mitchell contends that the district court committed procedural error during sentencing by treating the United States Sentencing Guidelines range as presumptively reasonable, failing to understand that he could impose a sentence below the Guidelines range, and failing to properly explain the sentence imposed. We conclude that the district court did not procedurally err. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 994-96 (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.