Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Robert Earl CUNNINGHAM, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-10-04
Citations: 669 F. App'x 443
Docket Number: No. 14-30259
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Robert Earl CUNNINGHAM, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: TASHIMA, SILVERMAN, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 669
Pages: 443–443

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Robert Earl CUNNINGHAM, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 14-30259
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted September 27, 2016
Filed October 04, 2016
Audrey Jane Renschen, Jo Ann Farring-ton, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Federal Bldg. & U.S. Courthouse, Anchorage, AK, for Plaintiff-Appellee
Jamie McGrady, Esquire, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Daniel F. Poul-son, FPDAK-Federal Public Defenders, Anchorage, AK, for Defendant-Appellant
Before: TASHIMA, SILVERMAN, and M. 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
Robert Earl Cunningham appeals from the district court's judgment and challenges the 600-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for six counts of sexual exploitation of a child, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a), (b), and (e). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Cunningham contends that the sentence is substantively unreasonable. The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing Cunningham's sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). The above-Guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors and the totality of the circumstances, including the nature of the offense and the need to protect the public. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51, 128 S.Ct. 586.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.