Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. David PHILLIPS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-06-21
Citations: 384 F. App'x 687
Docket Number: No. 09-30291
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. David PHILLIPS, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 384
Pages: 687–687

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. David PHILLIPS, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 09-30291.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted May 25, 2010.
Filed June 21, 2010.
Kris Allen McLean, Esquire, Assistant U.S., USMI — Office of the U.S. Attorney, Missoula, MT, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Andrew R. Nelson, Esquire, Dubia, Erickson, Tenerelli & Russo, LLP, Irvine, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, 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
David Phillips appeals from the 27-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for perjury/false declarations before U.S. Courts, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1623. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Phillips contends that his 27-month sentence, to run consecutively to his undischarged federal sentences, is unreasonable because it punishes conduct already accounted for by his federal sentences for probation revocation and escape. The record reflects that the district court did not procedurally err and that, in light of the totality of the circumstances, the within-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); see also United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 991-93 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc). The district court properly imposed the consecutive sentences in order to punish each separately and distinctly offensive act. See United States v. Simtob, 485 F.3d 1058, 1063 (9th Cir.2007).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.