Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Fonda K. MURGIA, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-03-25
Citations: 320 F. App'x 602
Docket Number: No. 08-10177
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Fonda K. MURGIA, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: LEAVY, HAWKINS, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 320
Pages: 602–602

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Fonda K. MURGIA, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 08-10177.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 18, 2009.
Filed March 25, 2009.
Sharon Kathleen Sexton, Assistant U.S., U.S. Attorney’s Office, Phoenix, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Joy Bertrand, Joy Bertrand, Esq., L.L.C., Scottsdale, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: LEAVY, HAWKINS, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Fonda K. Murgia appeals from the 21-month sentence imposed following revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Murgia contends that the district court erred by relying upon impermissible factors in fashioning a sentence consecutive to her state sentence. The record, however, demonstrates that the district court did not rely upon impermissible factors. See United States v. Simtob, 485 F.3d 1058, 1062-64 (9th Cir.2007). Murgia also contends that her sentence is unreasonable in light of the factors listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and that imposing the sentence to run consecutive to her state court sentence makes her sentence greater than necessary to meet the sentencing goals of § 3553(a). We conclude that the district court did not proeedurally err, and that the sentence is reasonable. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 991-93 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.