United States v. Crill
This text of 279 F. App'x 535 (United States v. Crill) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
MEMORANDUM
Leona Crill appeals from the six-month sentence imposed following the revocation of her supervised release. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Crill contends that her sentence is unreasonable because it is greater than necessary to accomplish the goals of sentencing, and because the district court presumed the Guidelines range was reasonable without taking into account her gambling problems or positive work his[536]*536tory. These contentions are belied by the record. We conclude that there was no procedural error and that Crill’s sentence is substantively reasonable. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 991-95 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc); see also United States v. Miqbel, 444 F.3d 1173, 1176 n. 5 (9th Cir.2006).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
279 F. App'x 535, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-crill-ca9-2008.