From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Luciow

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Sep 14, 2006
201 F. App'x 528 (9th Cir. 2006)

Opinion

Submitted September 11, 2006.

This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION. (See Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 36-3)

Daniel R. Drake, Esq., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Phoenix, AZ, for Plaintiff--Appellee.

Michael Laird Brown, Law Office of Michael L. Brown, Tucson, AZ, for Defendant--Appellant.


Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona, Paul G. Rosenblatt, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CR-90-00282-PGR.

Before: PREGERSON, T.G. NELSON, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Theodore Elko Luciow appeals from the 48-month sentence imposed following revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for reasonableness, United States v. Miqbel, 444 F.3d 1173, 1176 & n. 5 (9th Cir.2006), and we affirm.

We conclude that the district court articulated sufficiently specific reasons for imposing a sentence outside the Chapter 7 recommended sentencing range. See United States v. Musa, 220 F.3d 1096, 1101 (9th Cir.2000). Furthermore, the sentence is not unreasonable because the district court correctly considered the Chapter 7 policy statements and applied the factors enumerated in 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e). See United States v. Mix, 457 F.3d 906, 911-13 (9th Cir.2006).

To the extent that Luciow raises other contentions, those contentions lack merit.

AFFIRMED.


Summaries of

United States v. Luciow

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Sep 14, 2006
201 F. App'x 528 (9th Cir. 2006)
Case details for

United States v. Luciow

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff--Appellee, v. Theodore Elko LUCIOW…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Sep 14, 2006

Citations

201 F. App'x 528 (9th Cir. 2006)