Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Stephen FARRELL, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-10-28
Citations: 401 F. App'x 296
Docket Number: No. 10-30137
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Stephen FARRELL, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: O’SCANNLAIN, TALLMAN, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 401
Pages: 296–296

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Stephen FARRELL, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 10-30137.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 19, 2010.
Filed Oct. 28, 2010.
Paulette Lynn Stewart, Assistant U.S., USHE — Office of the U.S. Attorney, Helena, MT, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Michael Donahoe, Esquire, Assistant Federal Public Defender, FDMT — Federal Defenders of Montana, Helena Branch Office, Helena, MT, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, TALLMAN, and BEA, 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
Stephen Farrell appeals from the ten-month sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Farrell contends that the district court erred by considering impermissible factors at sentencing. The record shows that the district court did not rely on impermissible factors "as a primary basis for [the] revocation sentence." United States v. Miqbel, 444 F.3d 1173, 1182 (9th Cir.2006).
Farrell also contends that the sentence imposed is substantively unreasonable. In light of the totality of the circumstances, the sentence is substantively reasonable. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 993 (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.