Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jason HARRIS, a.k.a. Jason Van Pelt, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-09-24
Citations: 295 F. App'x 138
Docket Number: No. 08-30054
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jason HARRIS, a.k.a. Jason Van Pelt, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 295
Pages: 138–139

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jason HARRIS, a.k.a. Jason Van Pelt, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 08-30054.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 8, 2008.
Filed Sept. 24, 2008.
Paulette L. Stewart, USHE-Offiee of the U.S. Attorney, Helena, MT, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Evangelo Arvanetes, Federal Defenders of Montana, Great Falls, MT, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: TASHIMA, SILVERMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Jason Harris appeals from the 16-month sentenced imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for making a false statement during a firearms transaction, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(6). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Harris contends that it was error for the district court to use the advisory Sentencing Guidelines calculation as the starting point and initial benchmark in its sentencing determination. He is incorrect. The Supreme Court has stated that district courts should begin all sentencing proceedings by calculating the applicable Guidelines range as "the starting point and initial benchmark." Gall v. United States,-U.S. -, 128 S.Ct. 586, 596, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007).
To the extent Harris contends that the district court failed to consider all the factors contained in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and failed to provide an adequate explanation of its reasons for the sentence, we reject these contentions. See Gall, 128 S.Ct. at 597.
We also reject Harris's contention that his sentence is substantively unreasonable in light of the § 3553(a) factors. See id.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.