Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Justin Duane CORBRAY, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-03-05
Citations: 470 F. App'x 679
Docket Number: No. 11-30185
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Justin Duane CORBRAY, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 470
Pages: 679–679

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Justin Duane CORBRAY, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 11-30185.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 21, 2012.
Filed March 5, 2012.
Gregory M. Shogren, Esquire, Assistant U.S. Attorney, USYA-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Yakima, WA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Rebecca Louise Pennell, Esquire, Assistant Federal Public Defender, FDWAIDFederal Defenders of Eastern Washington & Idaho, Yakima, WA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: FERNANDEZ, McKEOWN, and BYBEE, 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
Justin Duane Corbray appeals from the 24-month sentence imposed following the revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Corbray contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to calculate the applicable Sentencing Guidelines range. This contention lacks merit as the record reflects that the district court adopted the undisputed Guidelines range calculated in the petition to revoke supervised release, and provided sufficient reasons for imposing a sentence at the statutory maximum. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 993 (9th Cir.2008).
Corbray also contends that the sentence imposed is substantively unreasonable. The sentence is substantively reasonable under the totality of the circumstances and in light of the sentencing factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and 3553(e). See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007); United States v. Miqbel, 444 F.3d 1173, 1182 (9th Cir.2006).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.