Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Robert Ellee TUCKER, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-01-22
Citations: 319 F. App'x 518
Docket Number: No. 08-30181
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Robert Ellee TUCKER, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: O’SCANNLAIN, BYBEE, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 319
Pages: 518–519

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Robert Ellee TUCKER, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 08-30181.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 13, 2009.
Filed Jan. 22, 2009.
Earl Allan Hicks, USSP-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Spokane, WA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Amy H. Rubin, FPDWA-Federal Public Defender’s Office, Spokane, WA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, BYBEE, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Robert Ellee Tucker appeals from the 24-month sentence imposed following the revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Tucker contends that the district court violated Rule 32.1 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and his right to due process by failing to disclose material information used in determining that a sentence at the statutory maximum was necessary for him to enroll in the Bureau of Prisons residential drug treatment program. No reversible error was committed. See United States v. Warr, 580 F.3d 1152, 1162 (9th Cir.2008); see also United States v. Duran, 37 F.3d 557, 561 n. 3 (9th Cir.1994).
Tucker also contends that the district court violated 18 U.S.C. § 3553(c)(2) by failing to explain the specific reasons for his sentence above the recommend range under the Chapter 7 policy statements. This contention is belied by the record. See United States v. Musa, 220 F.3d 1096, 1101 (9th Cir.2000); cf. United States v. Miqbel, 444 F.3d 1173, 1179 (9th Cir.2006).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.