Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Wyatt Anthony BIRD, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-02-24
Citations: 469 F. App'x 538
Docket Number: No. 11-30115
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Wyatt Anthony BIRD, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: FERNANDEZ, McKEOWN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 469
Pages: 538–539

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Wyatt Anthony BIRD, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 11-30115.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 21, 2012.
Filed Feb. 24, 2012.
Helen J. Brunner, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Seattle, WA, Gregory Gruber, Esquire, Assistant U.S., USTA-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Tacoma, WA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Ronald D. Ness, Port Orchard, WA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: FERNANDEZ, McKEOWN, and BYBEE, 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
Wyatt Bird appeals from the 96-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Bird first contends that the district court committed procedural error by failing to consider his mitigation arguments and failing adequately to explain the reasons for the sentence selected. These contentions fail because the district court's explanation was sufficient to communicate that it "considered the parties' arguments and ha[d] a reasoned basis for exercising [its] own legal decisionmaking authority." Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 356, 127 S.Ct. 2456, 168 L.Ed.2d 203 (2007).
Bird also contends that his sentence.is substantively unreasonable. In light of the totality of the circumstances, including Bird's significant criminal history, as well as the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors, the above-Guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provid ed by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.