United States v. Murgia
This text of 320 F. App'x 602 (United States v. Murgia) 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
Fonda K. Murgia appeals from the 21-month sentence imposed following revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Murgia contends that the district court erred by relying upon impermissible factors in fashioning a sentence consecutive to her state sentence. The record, however, demonstrates that the district court did not rely upon impermissible factors. See United States v. Simtob, 485 F.3d 1058, 1062-64 (9th Cir.2007). Murgia also contends that her sentence is unreasonable in light of the factors listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and that imposing the sentence to run consecutive to her state court sentence makes her sentence greater than necessary to meet the sentencing goals of § 3553(a). We conclude that the district court did not proeedurally err, and that the sentence is reasonable. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 991-93 (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.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
320 F. App'x 602, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-murgia-ca9-2009.