Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Anthony D. SWANEGAN, a.k.a. Anthony Swanegan, a.k.a. Anthony Demetri Swanegan, a.k.a. Anthony Demitus Swanegan, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-12-30
Citations: 464 F. App'x 655
Docket Number: No. 11-50124
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Anthony D. SWANEGAN, a.k.a. Anthony Swanegan, a.k.a. Anthony Demetri Swanegan, a.k.a. Anthony Demitus Swanegan, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 464
Pages: 655–656

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Anthony D. SWANEGAN, a.k.a. Anthony Swanegan, a.k.a. Anthony Demetri Swanegan, a.k.a. Anthony Demitus Swanegan, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 11-50124.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 19, 2011.
Filed Dec. 30, 2011.
David L. Katz, Esquire, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Bruce R. Castetter, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Devin Burstein, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and McKEOWN, 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
Anthony D. Swanegan appeals from the 24-month sentence imposed following the revocation of his supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Swanegan contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to explicitly calculate the Sentencing Guidelines range, and by improperly relying on punishment during sentencing. Swanegan has not shown that the district court's failure to expressly calculate the Guidelines range affected his substantial rights, particularly where the probation officer correctly calculated the Guidelines range and the district court provided sufficient reasons for the sentence. See United States v. Dallman, 533 F.3d 755, 761 (9th Cir.2008). Further, taken in context, the district court's reference to "punishment" properly concerned sanctions for Swanegan's supervised release violations, not for the underlying state crimes. See United States v. Simtob, 485 F.3d 1058, 1063 (9th Cir.2007).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provid ed by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.