Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Stephen LARGE, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-04-30
Citations: 276 F. App'x 584
Docket Number: No. 05-10251
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Stephen LARGE, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 276
Pages: 584–584

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Stephen LARGE, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 05-10251.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 22, 2008.
Filed April 30, 2008.
David L. Gappa, Esq., USF-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Fresno, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Marc C. Ament, Esq., FPDCA-Federal Public Defender’s Office, Fresno, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: GRABER, FISHER, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Stephen Large appeals from the 63-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for possession of material involving the sexual exploitation of minors, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(4)(B). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Large contends that the district court erred by failing to consider his ai'gument for a lower sentence and by failing to adequately explain its reasons for the sentence imposed. The district court's explanation for the sentence is sufficient under the circumstances to demonstrate that it had a reasoned basis for its decision. See Rita v. United States, — U.S. —, 127 S.Ct. 2456, 2468, 168 L.Ed.2d 203 (2007); United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992-93 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc); see also United States v. Perez-Perez, 512 F.3d 514, 516 (9th Cir.2008) (holding that the district court's explanation for a sentence within the Guidelines range was sufficient despite the lack of explicit reference to the defendant's mitigation arguments). We conclude that the district court did not procedurally err in imposing a sentence at the low end of the advisory Guidelines range. See Gall v. United States, — U.S.-, 128 S.Ct. 586, 596-97, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007); Carty, 520 F.3d at 991-96.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.