Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michael Jack OWL, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-08-17
Citations: 343 F. App'x 187
Docket Number: No. 08-10523
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michael Jack OWL, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: KLEINFELD, M. SMITH, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 343
Pages: 187–188

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michael Jack OWL, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 08-10523.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Aug. 11, 2009.
Filed Aug. 17, 2009.
John Robert Lopez, USPX — Office of the U.S. Attorney, Phoenix, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Jeanette Elizabeth Alvarado, Federal Public Defender, FPDAZ — Federal Public Defender’s Office, Phoenix, AZ, for Defen-danb-Appellant.
Before: KLEINFELD, M. SMITH, and IKUTA, 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 Jack Owl appeals from the sentence imposed following the revocation of his supervised release. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Owl contends that the district court's justifications for imposing a 45-month term of supervised release following a second supervised release revocation were insufficient. The supervised release term imposed was the maximum authorized by statute for Owl's underlying offense of aggravated sexual abuse. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(h); see also U.S.S.G. § 5D1.2(b)(2) (policy statement) (recommending the statutory maximum term of supervised release for sex offenders). The record reflects that the district court's explanation for imposing the sentence was sufficient. Accordingly, the sentence is reasonable. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 128 S.Ct. 586, 596-97, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007); see also United States v. Simtob, 485 F.3d 1058, 1062-63 (9th Cir.2007).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.