Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Byron B. YELLOWBEAR, Jr., Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-01-11
Citations: 361 F. App'x 893
Docket Number: No. 09-30078
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Byron B. YELLOWBEAR, Jr., Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 361
Pages: 893–894

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Byron B. YELLOWBEAR, Jr., Defendant—Appellant.
No. 09-30078.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 17, 2009.
Filed Jan. 11, 2010.
Lori Anne Harper Suek, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Billings, MT, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Steven C. Babcock, 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
Byron B. Yellowbear, Jr. appeals from the 180-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for aggravated sexual abuse, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1153(a) and 2241(a)(1). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Yellowbear contends that the district court erred by failing to adequately explain the sentence and by using a disputed fact when imposing the sentence. The record reflects that the district court expressly justified the sentence in terms of the applicable § 3553(a) factors. Furthermore, there is nothing in the record to indicate that the district court relied on a disputed fact when imposing the sentence. The district court did not procedurally err. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 49-50, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007).
Yellowbear also contends that the district court's imposition of a sentence toward the high end of the advisory Guidelines range was greater than necessary to comply with the purposes of sentencing set forth in § 3553(a). We conclude that the sentence is substantively reasonable. 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.