Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Theodore Elko LUCIOW, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-09-14
Citations: 201 F. App'x 528
Docket Number: No. 05-10712
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Theodore Elko LUCIOW, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before: PREGERSON, T.G. NELSON, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 201
Pages: 528–528

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Theodore Elko LUCIOW, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 05-10712.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 11, 2006.
Filed Sept. 14, 2006.
Daniel R. Drake, Esq., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Phoenix, AZ, for Plaintiff — Appellee.
Michael Laird Brown, Law Office of Michael L. Brown, Tucson, AZ, for Defendant — Appellant.
Before: PREGERSON, T.G. NELSON, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Theodore Elko Luciow appeals from the 48-month sentence imposed following revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for reasonableness, United States v. Miqbel, 444 F.3d 1173, 1176 & n. 5 (9th Cir.2006), and we affirm.
We conclude that the district court articulated sufficiently specific reasons for imposing a sentence outside the Chapter 7 recommended sentencing range. See United States v. Musa, 220 F.3d 1096, 1101 (9th Cir.2000). Furthermore, the sentence is not unreasonable because the district court correctly considered the Chapter 7 policy statements and applied the factors enumerated in 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e). See United States v. Mix, 457 F.3d 906, 911-13 (9th Cir.2006).
To the extent that Luciow raises other contentions, those contentions lack merit.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.