Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kenneth HELGESON, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-09-02
Citations: 344 F. App'x 392
Docket Number: No. 08-30303
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kenneth HELGESON, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: WALLACE, HAWKINS, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 344
Pages: 392–393

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kenneth HELGESON, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 08-30303.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Aug. 20, 2009.
Filed Sept. 2, 2009.
Eric Vincent Carroll, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Great Falls, MT, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
William Francis Hooks, Hooks & Wright, P.C., Helena, MT, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: WALLACE, HAWKINS, 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
Kenneth Helgeson appeals from the 57-month sentence imposed following a jury-trial conviction for involuntary manslaughter, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1153 and 1112(a). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Helgeson contends that the district court erred by denying his motion for acquittal pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 29 because the evidence was insufficient to sustain a conviction. Taking the evidence in the light most favorable to the government, a reasonable jury could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that Helgeson was guilty of involuntary manslaughter. See United States v. Lopez-Martinez, 543 F.3d 509, 515 (9th Cir.2008).
Next, Helgeson contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to adequately explain the sentence imposed. The district court did not procedurally err. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc).
Finally, we decline to address Helgeson's contention that his sentence is substantively unreasonable, as he failed to raise this contention in his opening brief. See United States v. Montoya, 45 F.3d 1286, 1300 (9th Cir.1995).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.