Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jeffery MARSHALL, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-01-11
Citations: 361 F. App'x 892
Docket Number: No. 09-30070
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Jeffery MARSHALL, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 361
Pages: 892–893

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Jeffery MARSHALL, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 09-30070.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 15, 2009.
Filed Jan. 11, 2010.
Rebekah J. French, Assistant U.S., USGF — Office of the U.S. Attorney, Great Falls, MT, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
James B. Obie, Obie Law, P.C., Helena, MT, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, 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
Jeffery Marshall appeals from the 200-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Marshall contends that the within-Guidelines range sentence is substantively unreasonable because the district court's application of the career offender enhancement over-represented the seriousness of his past offenses. The record reflects that the district court gave thorough consideration to Marshall's arguments in support of his request for a sentence below the Guidelines range, but found the circumstances insufficient to warrant such a sentence. Furthermore, the district court conducted a reasoned and thorough analysis of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors prior to imposing a sentence toward the lower end of the advisory Guidelines range. Accordingly, the sentence imposed is substantively reasonable. See United States v. Stoterau, 524 F.3d 988, 999-1002 (9th Cir.2008).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.