Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Dean John PERRI, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-01-11
Citations: 361 F. App'x 889
Docket Number: Nos. 09-30140, 09-30141
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Dean John PERRI, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 361
Pages: 889–889

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Dean John PERRI, Defendant-Appellant.
Nos. 09-30140, 09-30141.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 15, 2009.
Filed Jan. 11, 2010.
Michelle Kerin, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Portland, OR, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Francesca Freccero, FPDOR - Federal Public Defender’s Office, Portland, OR, 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
In these consolidated appeals, Dean John Perri appeals from the consecutive three-month sentences imposed upon revocation of supei-vised release. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Perri contends that the sentence is unreasonable because the district court failed to consider all of the factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e), impermissibly relied upon factors omitted from § 3583(e), and placed undue weight on his criminal history. The record reflects that the district court did not improperly rely upon factors omitted under § 3583(e), considered the appropriate sentencing factors, and that the sentence below the guidelines range is substantively reasonable. See United States v. Miqbel, 444 F.3d 1173, 1176, 1181-82 (9th Cir.2006) (stating that sentences imposed upon supervised release are reviewed for reasonableness and discussing the factors a district court may consider upon imposition of such sentence).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.