From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

U.S. v. Powderface

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Mar 1, 2010
368 F. App'x 768 (9th Cir. 2010)

Opinion

No. 09-30295.

Submitted February 16, 2010.

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

Filed March 1, 2010.

Carl E. Rostad, USGF — Office of the U.S. Attorney, Great Falls, MT, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

David F. Ness, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Defenders of Montana, Great Falls, MT, for Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Montana, Sam E. Haddon, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. 4:04-cr-00056-SEH.

Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.



MEMORANDUM

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Gregory Morris Powderface appeals from the nine-month sentence imposed following revocation of his supervised release. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Powderface contends his nine-month sentence is substantively unreasonable because prison alone does not serve the sentencing purposes of deterrence, protection of the public, and rehabilitation. In light of the totality of the circumstances of this case and the applicable 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors, the sentence is substantively reasonable. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3); Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007); see also United States v. Cope, 527 F.3d 944, 952 (9th Cir. 2008) (applying reasonableness requirements to supervised release term).

AFFIRMED.


Summaries of

U.S. v. Powderface

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Mar 1, 2010
368 F. App'x 768 (9th Cir. 2010)
Case details for

U.S. v. Powderface

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Gregory Morris…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Mar 1, 2010

Citations

368 F. App'x 768 (9th Cir. 2010)