Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jeremy Jason BROOKS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-06-07
Citations: 436 F. App'x 788
Docket Number: No. 10-50604
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jeremy Jason BROOKS, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: PREGERSON, THOMAS, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 436
Pages: 788–789

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jeremy Jason BROOKS, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 10-50604.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted May 24, 2011.
Filed June 7, 2011.
Bruce R. Castetter, Assistant U.S., David P. Curnow, Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Devin Burstein, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: PREGERSON, THOMAS, 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
Jeremy Jason Brooks appeals from his sentence of eight months imprisonment followed by 24 months of supervised release imposed on revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Brooks contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to explain adequately the reasons for the sentence imposed. The record reflects the district court adequately explained the reasons for the sentence. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 991-93 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc); see also Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 358-59, 127 S.Ct. 2456, 168 L.Ed.2d 203 (2007).
Brooks also contends that the district court improperly relied on the unsupported allegation that he drove while under the influence. The court did not plainly err. See United States v. Hammons, 558 F.3d 1100, 1103 (9th Cir.2009).
Brooks also contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable. However, the sentence was reasonable in light of the relevant factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). See United States v. Simtob, 485 F.3d 1058, 1062-63 (9th Cir.2007); see also 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.