Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. William Emory MCDOWELL, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-08-19
Citations: 332 F. App'x 422
Docket Number: No. 07-30482
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. William Emory MCDOWELL, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: KLEINFELD, M. SMITH, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 332
Pages: 422–422

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. William Emory MCDOWELL, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 07-30482.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Aug. 11, 2009.
Filed Aug. 19, 2009.
Gregory A. Gruber, Esq., USTA — Office of the U.S. Attorney, Tacoma, WA, Helen J. Brunner, Esq., USSE — Office of the U.S. Attorney, Seattle, WA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
William Emory McDowell, Seattle, WA, pro se.
Before: KLEINFELD, M. SMITH, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Appellant William McDowell appeals from the 175-month sentence imposed following remand for resentencing after this Court affirmed his convictions for felon-in-possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), violent felon-in-possession of body armor, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 931(a)(2), possession of cocaine base with intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C § 841(a)(1), and witness tampering, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1512(b)(1). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
McDowell contends that his sentence is unreasonable because the district court failed to adequately consider his troubled childhood, his rehabilitation following his initial sentencing, and his disavowal of his previous gang affiliations. A review of the record at sentencing reveals that these contentions are without merit. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 994-95 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.