Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Gary L. ADAMS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-12-14
Citations: 357 F. App'x 928
Docket Number: No. 09-30105
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Gary L. ADAMS, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: ALARCÓN, TROTT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 357
Pages: 928–928

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Gary L. ADAMS, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 09-30105.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 17, 2009.
Filed Dec. 14, 2009.
Nancy D. Cook, Traci Jo Whelan, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Co-eur D’Alene, ID, Amy Schipper Howe, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Boise, ID, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Matthew Campbell, Assistant Federal Public Defender, FPDWA-Federal Public Defender’s Office (Eastern WA & ID), Spokane, WA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: ALARCÓN, TROTT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Gary L. Adams appeals from the six-month sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Adams contends that the sentence is substantively unreasonable in light of his mitigating arguments, and that the district court erroneously considered dismissed battery charges as an aggravating factor at sentencing. Adams' contention that the district court improperly weighed his dismissed battery charges lacks merit and is not supported by the record. See United States v. Barragan-Espinoza, 350 F.3d 978, 983 (9th Cir.2003). The record reflects that the district court properly considered the sentencing factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e), and that the sentence is reasonable. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e); see also United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 993 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc); United States v. Miqbel, 444 F.3d 1173, 1176 (9th Cir.2006).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.