Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Monta Lamont HARRIS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-10-05
Citations: 333 F. App'x 310
Docket Number: No. 08-50289
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Monta Lamont HARRIS, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: SILVERMAN, RAWLINSON, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 333
Pages: 310–311

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Monta Lamont HARRIS, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 08-50289.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 14, 2009.
Filed Oct. 5, 2009.
April Anita Christine, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Michael J. Raphael, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Mark Yanis, Huntington Beach, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: SILVERMAN, RAWLINSON, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Monta Lamont Harris appeals from the 135-month sentence imposed following a guilty-plea conviction for conspiracy, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371; armed bank robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a)(d); and use of firearm during a crime of violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Harris contends that the district court erred by applying § 924(c)(l)(D)(ii) to run his sentences for bank robbery and conspiracy consecutive to an undischarged state prison sentence. The record reflects that the district court properly justified its choice of the sentence as a whole pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3584(b) and 3553(a). See United States v. Fifield, 432 F.3d 1056, 1064-66 (9th Cir.2005). The district court did not procedurally err and the sentence imposed is reasonable. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 128 S.Ct. 586, 596-97, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007); see also United States v. Catty, 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 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.