Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Gregory A. CONNELLY, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-04-19
Citations: 376 F. App'x 751
Docket Number: No. 09-30196
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Gregory A. CONNELLY, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: RYMER, McKEOWN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 376
Pages: 751–752

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Gregory A. CONNELLY, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 09-30196.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 5, 2010.
Filed April 19, 2010.
Gregory M. Shogren, Yakima, WA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Richard A. Smith, Smith Law Firm, Yakima, WA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: RYMER, McKEOWN, and PAEZ, 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
Gregory A. Connelly 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.
Connelly contends that the district court proeedurally erred by failing to adequately explain its sentence in terms of the applicable statutory sentencing factors, and that the sentence was substantively unreasonable in light of the facts of the case. The record reflects that the district court's explanation for imposing the sentence was sufficient. See United States v. Miqbel, 444 F.3d 1173, 1181-82 (9th Cir.2006); see also 18 U.S.C. § 3588(e). The district court did not proeedurally err, and the sentence imposed is substantively reasonable under the totality of the circumstances. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007); see also United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 993 (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.