Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Beth Ann WARD, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-02-26
Citations: 222 F. App'x 634
Docket Number: No. 06-30344
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Beth Ann WARD, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: BEEZER, FERNANDEZ, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 222
Pages: 634–635

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Beth Ann WARD, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 06-30344.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 20, 2007 .
Filed Feb. 26, 2007.
Michael S. Lahr, Esq., USHE — Office of the U.S. Attorney, Helena, MT, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Walter M. Hennessey, Esq., Hennessey and Joyce, Butte, MT, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: BEEZER, FERNANDEZ, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Beth Ann Ward appeals from the sentence imposed upon revocation of her supervised release. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for reasonableness the sentence imposed upon revocation, see United States v. Miqbel, 444 F.3d 1173, 1176 (9th Cir.2006), and we affirm.
Ward contends that the sentence imposed by the district court is unreasonable, in light of certain sentencing factors of 18 U.S.C. § 3553, as incorporated by 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e). This contention is unpersuasive. "A district court is not required to refer to each factor listed in § 3553(a)." United States v. Mix, 457 F.3d 906, 912 (9th Cir.2006). Further, the district court properly considered the applicable Chapter 7 Guidelines range, as well as § 3553 factors such as deterrence and protection of the public, before imposing a 24-month term of imprisonment and a 24-month term of supervised release. We conclude that the sentence was reasonable. See United States v. Marcial-Santiago, 447 F.3d 715, 719 (9th Cir.) (affirming where the district court "gave thoughtful attention to factors recognized in § 3553(a) and exercised sound discretion"), cert. denied sub nom. Acosta-Franco v. United States, — U.S. -, 127 S.Ct. 309, 166 L.Ed.2d 232 (2006).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.