Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Virgil Marc MEYERS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-10-16
Citations: 485 F. App'x 887
Docket Number: No. 12-30106
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Virgil Marc MEYERS, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: RAWLINSON, MURGUIA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 485
Pages: 887–888

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Virgil Marc MEYERS, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 12-30106.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 9, 2012.
Filed Oct. 16, 2012.
Cyndee Peterson, USMI — Office of the U.S. Attorney, Missoula, MT, J. Bishop Grewell, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the U.S. Attorneys, Helena, MT, Leif Johnson, Assistant U.S. Attorney, USBI— Office of the U.S. Attorney, Billings, MT, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Andrew J. Nelson, Esquire, Assistant Federal Public Defender, FDMT — Federal Defenders of Montana, Missoula, MT, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: RAWLINSON, MURGUIA, and WATFORD, 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
Virgil Marc Meyers appeals from the 12-month sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Meyers contends that the district court procedurally erred at sentencing by relying on his prior unprosecuted violations of the conditions of his supervised release. The district court did not err. Meyers's prior violations, which he did not dispute, were related to his history and characteristics, which the court must consider when imposing sentence. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1), 3583(e).
Meyers also contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to explain the sentence sufficiently. The record belies this contention.
Meyers finally contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable. In light of the totality of the circumstances and the 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) sentencing factors, the sentence is substantively reasonable. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.