Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Stanley Joseph SQUETIMKIN, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-08-04
Citations: 196 F. App'x 573
Docket Number: No. 05-30198
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Stanley Joseph SQUETIMKIN, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 196
Pages: 573–574

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Stanley Joseph SQUETIMKIN, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 05-30198.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 24, 2006.
Filed Aug. 4, 2006.
Jared C. Kimball, Esq., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Spokane, WA, for PlaintiffAppellee.
Christina L. Hunt, Esq., Federal Public Defender’s Office, Spokane, WA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: ALARCÓN, HAWKINS, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Stanley Joseph Squetimkin appeals from his 78-month sentence for sexual abuse of a minor in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2243(a), 2246(2)(A) and (C), and 1153. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Squetimkin contends that the district court erred in imposing a two-level adjustment for a vulnerable victim pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3A1.1(b), and therefore the resultant sentence was necessarily unreasonable under United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005). We conclude that the district court correctly applied the vulnerable victim adjustment based upon the uncontested facts in the Presentence Report and the Plea Agreement indicating that the victim had been sleeping at the time the abuse commenced. See United States v. Wetchie, 207 F.3d 632, 636 (9th Cir.2000) ("district court correctly applied the vulnerable victim adjustment based on the fact that [defendant's] victim was asleep"). Accordingly, there was no "material error by the district court in calculating the applicable Guidelines range," and because Squetimkin "d[oes] not raise any general reasonableness challenges . we do not reach the second step of the analysis, which would otherwise require a determination of whether [Squetimkin's sentence is] reasonable in light of § 3553(a)." United States v. Cantrell, 433 F.3d 1269, 1280-81 (9th Cir.2006).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.