Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Harold Dean DUPREE, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-07-16
Citations: 388 F. App'x 590
Docket Number: No. 09-30341
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Harold Dean DUPREE, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: REINHARDT, GRABER and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 388
Pages: 590–591

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Harold Dean DUPREE, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 09-30341.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted July 13, 2010.
Filed July 16, 2010.
Carl E. Rostad, Assistant U.S., USGF-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Great Falls, MT, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Daniel Donovan, Esquire, Thompson, Potts & Donovan, P.C., Great Falls, MT, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: REINHARDT, GRABER and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Harold Dupree pled guilty to voluntary manslaughter and was sentenced to an above-Guidelines sentence of 160 months. He appeals that sentence, contending that it was substantively unreasonable. We have jurisdiction, and we affirm.
We review sentences for abuse of discretion, and "only a procedurally erroneous or substantively unreasonable sentence will be set aside." United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 993 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc). Dupree contends that the justification for his sentence that the district court provided was not "sufficiently compelling," see id. at 991, and that his sentence was substantively unreasonable. The district court justified the above-Guidelines sentence it imposed on Dupree by reference to Du-pree's extensive criminal record, which included tribal convictions for violent conduct and a 1983 murder conviction that were not counted in the Guidelines criminal history calculation. On this record, we cannot conclude that the district court's justification for the sentence imposed was insufficient or that the sentence itself was substantively unreasonable. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.