Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ian Juan CIPRIANO, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-04-18
Citations: 274 F. App'x 563
Docket Number: No. 07-10292
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ian Juan CIPRIANO, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 274
Pages: 563–563

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ian Juan CIPRIANO, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 07-10292.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 15, 2008.
Filed April 18, 2008.
Diane J. Humetewa, USPX-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Phoenix, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Trautman Dupont, PLC, Phoenix, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, GOULD and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Ian Juan Cipriano ("Cipriano") appeals the 51-month term of imprisonment imposed by the district judge upon the second revocation of Cipriano's supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for reasonableness, United States v. Miqbel, 444 F.3d 1173, 1176 (9th Cir.2006), and we affirm.
Cipriano argues that the district judge based his above-Guidelines sentence on improper considerations. We disagree, and conclude that the district court relied on permissible factors in revoking Cipriano's supervised release and formulating his sentence. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583; Miqbel, 444 F.3d at 1182-83.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
. Because the parties are familiar with the factual and procedural history of this case, we do not recount it in detail here.