Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Brett HAHN, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-09-01
Citations: 394 F. App'x 381
Docket Number: No. 09-30244
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Brett HAHN, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: LEAVY, HAWKINS, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 394
Pages: 381–382

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Brett HAHN, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 09-30244.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Aug. 10, 2010.
Filed Sept. 1, 2010.
Kris Allen McLean, Esquire, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Missoula, MT, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
John Rhodes, Esquire, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Defenders of Montana, Missoula, MT, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: LEAVY, HAWKINS, and IKUTA, 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
Brett Hahn appeals from the 46-month sentence imposed following remand for re-sentencing. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Hahn contends the district court procedurally erred when it imposed a consecutive sentence on remand without giving him credit for the 902 days he served in state custody. The district court's decision to depart from section 5G1.3(b) of the Sentencing Guidelines by imposing a consecutive sentence obviated the requirement that Hahn be granted credit for time spent in state custody under section 5G1.3(b)(l). Moreover, the district court's explanation for its sentence was sufficient to allow for meaningful appellate review. See Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 356-59, 127 S.Ct. 2456, 168 L.Ed.2d 203 (2007); United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 991-92, 995 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc).
Hahn's motion to expedite appellate review is denied as moot.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.