Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Darlene MERAZ, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-01-22
Citations: 319 F. App'x 517
Docket Number: No. 08-50297
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Darlene MERAZ, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: O’SCANNLAIN, BYBEE, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 319
Pages: 517–518

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Darlene MERAZ, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 08-50297.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 13, 2009.
Filed Jan. 22, 2009.
Thomas Blanchard Snyder, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Candis Mitchell, Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, BYBEE, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Darlene Meraz appeals from the 12-month sentence imposed following the revocation of probation. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Meraz contends that the district court failed to consider the Sentencing Commission's Chapter 7 policy statements because the district court made no reference to the applicable sentencing range. The basis for the district court's sentencing calculations is apparent from the record. No reversible error was committed. See United States v. Tadeo, 222 F.3d 623, 625 (9th Cir.2000); see also United States v. Miqbel, 444 F.3d 1173, 1180 n. 14 (9th Cir.2006).
Meraz also asserts that the sentence is unreasonable because the district court failed to consider the need to impose a sentence sufficient, but not greater than necessary, and failed to adequately explain why a sentence of less than 12 months was unnecessary. We conclude that the district court did not commit procedural error, and that Meraz's sentence is substantively reasonable. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 994-95 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc); see also United States v. Maciel-Vasquez, 458 F.3d 994, 995 (9th Cir.2006).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.