Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Shaun Delmore MORTENSON, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-12-14
Citations: 357 F. App'x 925
Docket Number: No. 09-30153
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Shaun Delmore MORTENSON, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: ALARCÓN, TROTT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 357
Pages: 925–926

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Shaun Delmore MORTENSON, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 09-30153.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 17, 2009.
Filed Dec. 14, 2009.
See also 316 Fed.Appx. 680.
Marcia Kay Hurd, Esquire, USBI-Of-fice of the U.S. Attorney, Billings, MT, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Jeremy Scott Yellin, Esquire, Jeremy S. Yellin, Esq., Attorney at Law, Havre, MT, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: ALARCÓN, TROTT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Shaun Delmore Mortenson appeals from the lifetime term of supervised release imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for receipt of child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(2). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Mortenson contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to provide any explanation for imposing a lifetime term of supervised release. Although the district court did not expressly state its reasons for imposing a lifetime term of supervised release, the record reflects that the district court considered the arguments and evidence submitted by Morten-son before imposing the term recommended by the Guidelines. See United States v. Daniels, 541 F.3d 915, 922 (9th Cir.2008). Accordingly, the district court did not procedurally err. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 996 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc).
To the extent that Mortenson contends that the length of the supervised release term is substantively unreasonable, this contention is belied by the record. See Daniels, 541 F.3d at 923-24; see also Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.