Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Justin Matthew FLETCHER, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-10-28
Citations: 350 F. App'x 145
Docket Number: No. 09-30050
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Justin Matthew FLETCHER, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: B. FLETCHER, LEAVY, and RYMER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 350
Pages: 145–146

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Justin Matthew FLETCHER, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 09-30050.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 13, 2009.
Filed Oct. 28, 2009.
Kory Larsen, Special Assistant U.S., USGF-Offiee of the U.S. Attorney, Great Falls, MT, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Robert Henry Branom, Jr., Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Defenders of Montana, Great Falls, MT, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: B. FLETCHER, LEAVY, and RYMER, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed.R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Justin Matthew Fletcher appeals from the 150-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm, and possession of a stolen firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) and 922(j). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Fletcher contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing adequately to explain the sentence imposed and failing explicitly to address his arguments that a difficult childhood and mental health problems warranted a lower sentence. Fletcher also contends that the sentence is substantively unreasonable. The record reflects that the district court adequately explained the sentence, and considered Fletcher's arguments at the sentencing hearing. See United States v. Perez-Perez, 512 F.3d 514, 516-17 (9th Cir.2008). Further, in light of the totality of the circumstances and the sentencing factors of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), the sentence is not unreasonable. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 128 S.Ct. 586, 597, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.