Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Sharrod BOLTON, a.k.a. Sharrod Bolten, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-10-29
Citations: 402 F. App'x 206
Docket Number: No. 09-50548
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Sharrod BOLTON, a.k.a. Sharrod Bolten, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before: O’SCANNLAIN, TALLMAN, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 402
Pages: 206–207

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Sharrod BOLTON, a.k.a. Sharrod Bolten, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 09-50548.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 19, 2010.
Filed Oct. 29, 2010.
Michael J. Raphael, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los An-geles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Sharrod Bolten, Kurt J. Mayer, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Office of the Federal Public Defender, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, TALLMAN, and BEA, 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
Sharrod Bolton appeals from his 21-month sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Bolton contends that the district court did not provide an adequate statements of reasons for the sentence in excess of the policy statement range. To the contrary, the district court explicitly noted that Bolton blatantly breached the court's trust and that he poses a significant risk to the community. Thus, the district court did not procedurally err. See United States v. Musa, 220 F.3d 1096, 1101-03 (9th Cir.2000).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.