United States v. James Sorrell

608 F. App'x 505

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

. James Robert Sorrell appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 18-month sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Sorrell contends that the district court erred by relying on impermissible sentencing factors and by failing to explain adequately the sentence imposed. We review for plain error, see United States v. Miqbel, 444 F.3d 1173, 1176 (9th Cir.2006), and find none. The record reflects that the district court considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) sentencing factors, did not consider impermissible sentencing factors, and sufficiently explained its reasons for imposing the above-Guidelines sentence. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (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.