Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James L. MATCHETT, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-09-30
Citations: 295 F. App'x 217
Docket Number: No. 07-30304
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James L. MATCHETT, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 295
Pages: 217–218

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James L. MATCHETT, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 07-30304.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 8, 2008.
Filed Sept. 30, 2008.
Helen J. Brunner, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Ye-Ting Woo, Esquire, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Seattle, WA, for PlaintiffAppellee.
Miriam F. Schwartz, Esquire, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Tacoma, WA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
James L. Matchett appeals from the sentence imposed following revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Matchett contends that the district court's statement of reasons was inadequate to justify imposing a term of supervised release, and that the resulting sentence is unreasonable. We conclude that the district court's statement of reasons was sufficient to support the one-year term of supervised release. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992-93 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc); see also United States v. Cope, 527 F.3d 944, 950 (9th Cir.2008) (applying reasonableness requirements to supervised release terms). We further conclude that the sentence is substantively reasonable. See Carty, 520 F.3d at 993; see also Cope, 527 F.3d at 951.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.