Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Steven Paul PETERS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-10-29
Citations: 402 F. App'x 217
Docket Number: No. 09-30387
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Steven Paul PETERS, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before: O’SCANNLAIN, TALLMAN, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 402
Pages: 217–218

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Steven Paul PETERS, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 09-30387.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 19, 2010.
Filed Oct. 29, 2010.
Carl E. Rostad, Assistant U.S., USGF-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Great Falls, MT, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Daniel R. Wilson, Esquire, Measure & Wilson P.C., Kalispell, MT, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, TALLMAN, and BEA, 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
Steven Paul Peters appeals from his low-end 70-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute heroin, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(B) and 846. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Peters contends that the district court imposed a substantively unreasonable sentence because the sentence fails to sufficiently account for the time served on a state sentence for the same conduct. The record reflects that the district court did not procedurally err, see United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 991-93 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc), and that, under the totality of the circumstances, the sentence at the bottom of the guidelines range is substantively reasonable. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586,169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007); see also Carty, 520 F.3d at 993.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.