Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Llewellyn K. LUCEI, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-09-04
Citations: 291 F. App'x 839
Docket Number: No. 07-30383
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Llewellyn K. LUCEI, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 291
Pages: 839–839

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Llewellyn K. LUCEI, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 07-30383.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Aug. 26, 2008.
Filed Sept. 4, 2008.
Robert A. Ellis, Esq., USYA-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Yakima, WA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Tracy Staab, Federal Public Defender Office Eastern Washington and Idaho, Spokane, WA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: SCHROEDER, KLEINFELD, 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
Llewellyn K. Lucei appeals from the 24-month sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C § 1291, and we affirm.
Lucei contends that, at sentencing, the district court erred by failing to calculate and articulate the Guidelines range on the record. We conclude that Lucei has not established that any error affected his substantial rights. See United States v. Dallman, 533 F.3d 755, 761-62 (9th Cir.2008).
Lucei also contends that the district court erred by failing to provide sufficient reasons for the sentence imposed. We disagree. See Rita v. United States, — U.S. —, 127 S.Ct. 2456, 2468-69, 168 L.Ed.2d 203 (2007); United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 995-96 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc).
Finally, Lucei contends that his sentence is unreasonable in light of the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and 3583(e). We conclude that Lucei's sentence is reasonable. See Gall v. United States, - U.S. -, 128 S.Ct. 586, 600-02, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007); United States v. Simtob, 485 F.3d 1058, 1062-64 (9th Cir.2007).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.