Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Laymon Parker McGAUHEY, III, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-01-06
Citations: 361 F. App'x 780
Docket Number: No. 09-30093
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Laymon Parker McGAUHEY, III, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 361
Pages: 780–781

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Laymon Parker McGAUHEY, III, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 09-30093.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 15, 2009.
Filed Jan. 6, 2010.
Marcia Kay Hurd, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Billings, MT, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
David Merchant, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Defenders of Montana, Billings, MT, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, 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
Laymon Parker McGauhey III appeals from the 235-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for transportation of child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(l). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
McGauhey contends the district court abused its discretion by imposing a sentence consecutive to his Nevada state sen tence of life with parole eligibility after 120 months because the 235-month consecutive sentence is greater than necessary to accomplish the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) goals and is therefore substantively unreasonable. In light of the totality of the circumstances of this case and the § 3553(a) sentencing factors, the sentence is not substantively unreasonable. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007); United States v. Carty, 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 9th Cir. R. 36-3.