Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Sue Ellen STATEN, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-12-28
Citations: 261 F. App'x 967
Docket Number: No. 07-30040
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Sue Ellen STATEN, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before GOODWIN, WALLACE and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 261
Pages: 967–968

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Sue Ellen STATEN, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 07-30040.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 3, 2007 .
Filed Dec. 28, 2007.
Joseph E. Thaggard, Esq., USGF-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Great Falls, MT, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
E. June Lord, Esq., Great Falls, MT, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before GOODWIN, WALLACE and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Sue Ellen Staten appeals from the 63-month sentence imposed upon remand, following her guilty-plea conviction for conspiracy to manufacture methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Staten contends that the district court erred by applying U.S.S.G. § 2Dl.l(b)(5)(B) to enhance her sentence because the evidence did not support the conclusion that the underlying offense created a substantial risk of harm. We disagree. The evidence presented at sentencing supported the district, court's conclusion that there was a substantial risk of harm posed by the conspiracy. See U.S.S.G. § 2Dl.l(b)(5)(B) & cmt. n. 20(A).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.