Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ron Oneida WHITEMAN, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-03-29
Citations: 372 F. App'x 751
Docket Number: No. 09-30123
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ron Oneida WHITEMAN, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: SCHROEDER, PREGERSON, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 372
Pages: 751–752

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ron Oneida WHITEMAN, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 09-30123.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 16, 2010.
Filed March 29, 2010.
Lori Anne Harper Suek, Assistant U.S., USBI-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Billings, MT, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
David Merchant, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Defenders of Montana, Billings, MT, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: SCHROEDER, PREGERSON, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Ron Oneida Whiteman appeals from the 293-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for aggravated sexual abuse, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1153(a) and 2241(a)(1). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Whiteman contends that the district court erred by denying a sentencing reduction for acceptance of responsibility on the ground that, while awaiting sentencing, he committed a new, unrelated crime. This contention fails under United States v. Mara, 523 F.3d 1036, 1038-39 (9th Cir.2008). Whiteman further contends that the resulting sentence is unreasonable. The record reflects that the district court did not procedurally err. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 993 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc). Additionally, in light of the totality of the circumstances, including the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors, the district court's sentence is substantively reasonable. See id.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.