Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Anthony Lee GILLIES, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-06-14
Citations: 237 F. App'x 229
Docket Number: No. 06-50297
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Anthony Lee GILLIES, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before: LEAVY, RYMER, and T.G. NELSON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 237
Pages: 229–230

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Anthony Lee GILLIES, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 06-50297.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 5, 2007 .
Filed June 14, 2007.
Stephen M. Miller, Esq., Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Inge Brauer, Esq., San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: LEAVY, RYMER, and T.G. NELSON, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Anthony Lee Gillies appeals from district court's revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
We disagree with Gillies' contention that his above-Guidelines sentence is unreasonable because "the record fails to demonstrate either explicit or implicit consideration of the sentencing factors." The record shows that the district court adequately considered 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) when it decided to reject the Guidelines range in favor of the statutory maximum term of supervised release. See United States v. Miqbel, 444 F.3d 1173, 1178 (9th Cir.2006) (recognizing that district court must explain reason for imposing sentence outside Guidelines range); United States v. Tadeo, 222 F.3d 623, 625 (9th Cir.2000) (explaining that court may reject suggested Guidelines range and impose sentence within statutory maximum). Under the circumstances, we cannot say the sentence was unreasonable.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.