Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kendy CARPENTER, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-12-14
Citations: 357 F. App'x 927
Docket Number: No. 09-30134
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kendy CARPENTER, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: ALARCÓN, TROTT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Bankruptcy Reporter
Volume: 427
Pages: 927–927

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kendy CARPENTER, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 09-30134.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 17, 2009.
Filed Dec. 14, 2009.
Carl E. Rostad, USGF-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Great Falls, MT, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Michael Donahoe, Esquire, FDMT-Fed-eral Defenders of Montana Helena Branch Office, Helena, MT, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: ALARCÓN, TROTT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2). Accordingly, appellant’s request for oral argument is denied.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Kendy Carpenter appeals from the 24-month sentence imposed following her guilty-plea conviction for bankruptcy fraud, violating the Federal False Claims Act, federal student loan fraud, and federal food stamp assistance fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 152(3), 287, 1001(a)(2) & (3). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Carpenter contends that the district court procedurally erred by applying an upward departure and that her sentence above the Guidelines range is substantively unreasonable. A review of record demonstrates that the district court properly considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and that based on the totality of the circumstances, the sentence imposed is not substantively unreasonable. See United States v. Vanderwerfhorst, 576 F.3d 929, 935 (9th Cir.2009); see also United States v. Hilgers, 560 F.3d 944, 947-48 (9th Cir.2009).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.