Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Brice HUTTINGER, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-10-28
Citations: 350 F. App'x 147
Docket Number: No. 09-30006
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Brice HUTTINGER, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: B. FLETCHER, LEAVY, and RYMER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 350
Pages: 147–147

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Brice HUTTINGER, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 09-30006.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 13, 2009.
Filed Oct. 28, 2009.
Joseph E. Thaggard, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Helena, MT, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Evangelo Arvanetes, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Defenders of Montana, Great Falls, MT, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: B. FLETCHER, LEAVY, and RYMER, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed.R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Brice Huttinger appeals from the 210-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Huttinger contends that the district court failed adequately to consider the sentencing factors of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and failed to explain the sentence. The record belies these contentions. United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 991-92 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc).
Huttinger also contends that the sentence is substantively unreasonable. In light of the totality of the circumstances and the 3553(a) factors, the sentence was not unreasonable. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 128 S.Ct. 586, 597, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007); United States v. Cherer, 513 F.3d 1150, 1161 (9th Cir.2008) (recognizing it is insufficient to reverse a sentencing decision because the appellate court might reasonably have concluded that a different sentence was appropriate).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.