Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Donald G. HOGUE, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-07-30
Citations: 286 F. App'x 461
Docket Number: No. 07-10581
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Donald G. HOGUE, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 286
Pages: 461–462

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Donald G. HOGUE, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 07-10581.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 22, 2008.
Filed July 30, 2008.
Darcy A. Cerow, AUSA, USPX-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Phoenix, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Jeffrey A. Williams, Esq., FPDAZ-Fed-eral Public Defender’s Office, Phoenix, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: B. FLETCHER, THOMAS, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Donald G. Hogue appeals from the 11-month sentence imposed following revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Hogue contends that the district court gave an inadequate statement of reasons for the sentence. Because Hogue did not previously object to the adequacy of the district court's statement of reasons, this contention is reviewed for plain error. See United States v. Miqbel, 444 F.3d 1173, 1176 (9th Cir.2006). We find no plain error, and also find that, if there was error, Hogue has not shown that any error affected his substantial rights. See United States v. Vences, 169 F.3d 611, 613 (9th Cir.1999).
Hogue also contends that the sentence is unreasonable. In light of the totality of the circumstances, we conclude that the sentence, within the applicable Guideline range, is reasonable. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 993 (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.