Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Eileen Marie GELLER, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-02-23
Citations: 468 F. App'x 812
Docket Number: No. 10-50210
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Eileen Marie GELLER, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: FERNANDEZ, McKEOWN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 468
Pages: 812–813

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Eileen Marie GELLER, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 10-50210.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 21, 2012.
Filed Feb. 23, 2012.
Anthony Robert Montero, Special Assistant U.S., Michael J. Raphael, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Wayne Richard Young, Law Office of Wayne R. Young, Santa Monica, CA, 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
Eileen Marie Geller appeals from the 36-month sentence imposed following her guilty-plea conviction for five counts of health care fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1347. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Geller contends that the district court procedurally erred when it failed to consider or explain adequately why it rejected Geller's arguments for a lenient sentence and the probation officer's recommendation. The record belies her contention. The district court considered Geller's mitigating arguments and adequately explained that in light of the severity of the offense and the need to promote respect for the law, a sentence one month below the advisory Guidelines range was warranted. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992-93 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.