United States v. Miller
This text of 333 F. App'x 287 (United States v. Miller) 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
Rodney Royce Miller appeals from the 35-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). We [288]*288have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Miller contends that the district court erred at sentencing by failing to adequately explain the sentence. He further contends that his sentence within the Guidelines range is substantively unreasonable in light of the nature of the offense and his history and characteristics. The district court did not procedurally err at sentencing. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 993, 995-96 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc). Moreover, the sentence is not substantively unreasonable. See Carty, 520 F.3d at 996; United States v. Nichols, 464 F.3d 1117, 1125-26 (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
333 F. App'x 287, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-miller-ca9-2009.