Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jerry Lee HUFFMAN, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-10-28
Citations: 457 F. App'x 606
Docket Number: No. 10-50608
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jerry Lee HUFFMAN, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: TROTT, GOULD, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 457
Pages: 606–607

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jerry Lee HUFFMAN, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 10-50608.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 25, 2011.
Filed Oct. 28, 2011.
Michael J. Raphael, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Jay Howard Robinson, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Ashwini Shrikrishna Mate, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Office of the Federal Public Defender, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: TROTT, GOULD, and RAWLINSON, 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
Jerry Lee Huffman appeals from the 46-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for bank robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Huffman contends that the district court failed to explain adequately its reasons for rejecting a sentence below the advisory Sentencing Guidelines range. The record belies this contention. Accordingly, Huffman has not demonstrated that the district court erred, let alone that it committed plain error. See United States v. Waknine, 543 F.3d 546, 554-55 (9th Cir.2008).
Huffman also contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable. In light of the totality of the circumstances and the sentencing factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), the sentence at the low-end of the Guidelines range was reasonable. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007); United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 993-94 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.