Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Alfred Vincent HAVIER, Jr., Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-12-09
Citations: 359 F. App'x 806
Docket Number: No. 09-10069
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Alfred Vincent HAVIER, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: HUG, SKOPIL and BEEZER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 359
Pages: 806–806

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Alfred Vincent HAVIER, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.
No. 09-10069.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 2, 2009.
Filed Dec. 9, 2009.
Angela Walker Woolridge, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
David W. Basham, Tucson, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: HUG, SKOPIL and BEEZER, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Alfred Vincent Havier appeals from the district court's sentence of 63 months imprisonment following his plea of guilty to charges of sexually abusing a minor. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review the district court's sentencing procedure for plain error. United States v. Autery, 555 F.3d 864, 868-70 (9th Cir.2009). We review the reasonableness of the district court's sentence for abuse of discretion. Id. at 870-71.
The facts of this case are known to the parties. We do not repeat them.
"Whether sound discretion has been exercised must be answered in each case through a thorough review of the record." United States v. Barker, 771 F.2d 1362, 1366 (9th Cir.1985). After reviewing the record in full, we determine that the district court exercised sound discretion in this case. The district court did not plainly err, nor did it abuse its discretion in declining to credit Havier with time served in tribal custody.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.