Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jeffrey Louis KINNEY, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-02-15
Citations: 413 F. App'x 969
Docket Number: No. 10-30197
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jeffrey Louis KINNEY, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: CANBY, FERNANDEZ, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 413
Pages: 969–970

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jeffrey Louis KINNEY, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 10-30197.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 15, 2011.
Filed Feb. 15, 2011.
Stephanie A. Van Marter, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Spokane, WA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Robert R. Fischer, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Matthew Campbell, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Spokane, WA, for DefendanU-Appellant.
Before: CANBY, FERNANDEZ, and M. SMITH, 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
Jeffrey Louis Kinney appeals from the 16-month sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Kinney contends that the district court committed procedural error by basing the sentence on clearly erroneous facts. The record reflects that the district court's view of the evidence was "plausible in light of the record viewed in its entirety." United States v. Cantrell, 433 F.3d 1269, 1284 (9th Cir.2006).
Kinney also contends that the sentence is substantively unreasonable because, among other things, he had served sufficient time on the underlying charge. In light of the totality of the circumstances, the district court's sentence is substantively reasonable. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 993 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc).
Kinney's motion to enlarge the record on appeal is denied. See Fed. R.App. P. 10(e); Lowry v. Barnhart, 329 F.3d 1019, 1025-26 (9th Cir.2003).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.