Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. John Anthony MILLER, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-03-14
Citations: 421 F. App'x 711
Docket Number: No. 10-50086
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. John Anthony MILLER, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: FARRIS, LEAVY, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 421
Pages: 711–712

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. John Anthony MILLER, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 10-50086.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 8, 2011.
Filed March 14, 2011.
Michael J. Raphael, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Michael R. Wilner, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Kurt J. Mayer, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Office of the Federal Public Defender, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
John Anthony Miller, Lompoc, CA, pro se.
Before: FARRIS, LEAVY, and BYBEE, 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
John Anthony Miller appeals from the 159-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for bribery of a public official in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 201(b)(1), making a false statement in a passport application in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1542, aggravated identity theft in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1028A, and mail fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1341. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Miller contends that the district court procedurally erred when it failed to consider or explain why it rejected the government's request for a three-level downward variance in light of Miller's cooperation.
The record reflects that the district court considered the arguments and adequately explained that in light of the severity of the offense, a sentence below the Guidelines range was not warranted. See Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 359, 127 S.Ct. 2456, 168 L.Ed.2d 203 (2007); see also United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 995 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.