Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Charles Bernard PARKE, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-10-27
Citations: 401 F. App'x 237
Docket Number: No. 09-30375
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Charles Bernard PARKE, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: O’SCANNLAIN, TALLMAN, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 401
Pages: 237–238

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Charles Bernard PARKE, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 09-30375.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 19, 2010.
Filed Oct. 27, 2010.
Joseph E. Thaggard, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Helena, MT, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Steven Craig Haddon, Esquire, Helena, MT, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, TALLMAN, and BEA, 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
Charles Bernard Parke appeals from his 262-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.
Parke contends that his sentence is unreasonable because the district court failed to consider his extraordinary medical problems. The record reflects that the district court thoroughly considered Parke's arguments for a downward departure based on his health issues, but found the circumstances insufficient to warrant a sentence below the bottom of the advisory Guidelines range. The district court did not procedurally err, and the sentence 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, 995 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc).
Parke's request for new counsel is denied.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.