Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Tyree Allan ROWE, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-10-27
Citations: 401 F. App'x 226
Docket Number: No. 09-50293
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Tyree Allan ROWE, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: O’SCANNLAIN, TALLMAN, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 401
Pages: 226–227

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Tyree Allan ROWE, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 09-50293.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 19, 2010.
Decided Oct. 27, 2010.
Michael J. Raphael, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Justin Randall Rhoades, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Michael Tanaka, Deputy Federal Public Defender, FPDCA — Federal Public Defender’s Office, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendanfl-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
Tyree Allan Rowe appeals from the 36-month sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Rowe contends that his sentence, which is the statutory maximum, is substantively unreasonable given the non-criminal nature of his violations. The record reflects that the district court did not procedurally err and that, in light of the totality of the circumstances, the district court did not abuse its discretion because the sentence is substantively reasonable. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 991-93 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc); see also United States v. Simtob, 485 F.3d 1058, 1062-63 (9th Cir.2007).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.