Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Shane Jon BRAATEN, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-09-20
Citations: 479 F. App'x 787
Docket Number: No. 11-30320
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Shane Jon BRAATEN, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: WARDLAW, CLIFTON, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 479
Pages: 787–787

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Shane Jon BRAATEN, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 11-30320.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 10, 2012.
Filed Sept. 20, 2012.
Marcia Kay Hurd, Esquire, Leif Johnson, Assistant U.S. Attorneys, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Billings, MT, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Steven C. Babcock, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Defenders of Montana, Billings, MT, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: WARDLAW, CLIFTON, and N.R. SMITH, 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
Shane Jon Braaten appeals from the 110-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for receipt of child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(2). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Braaten contends that the district court failed to explain adequately the basis for its sentence and ignored his policy arguments challenging the child pornography Guideline. The record reflects that the court sufficiently explained the reasons for imposing the below-Guidelines sentence, and that it considered Braaten's arguments. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992-93 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc); United States v. Perez-Perez, 512 F.3d 514, 516 (9th Cir.2008).
Braaten also contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable. In light of the totality of the circumstances and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors, Braaten's below-Guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.