Opinion
No. 06-50297.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a)(2).
Filed June 14, 2007.
Stephen M. Miller, Esq., Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Inge Brauer, Esq., San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, Barry T. Moskowitz, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CR-96-00281-BTM.
Before: LEAVY, RYMER, and T.G. NELSON, Circuit Judges.
MEMORANDUM
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Anthony Lee Gillies appeals from district court's revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
We disagree with Gillies' contention that his above-Guidelines sentence is unreasonable because "the record fails to demonstrate either explicit or implicit consideration of the sentencing factors." The record shows that the district court, adequately considered 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) when it decided to reject the Guidelines range in favor of the statutory maximum term of supervised release. See United States v. Miqbel 444 F.3d 1173, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (recognizing that district court must explain reason for imposing sentence outside Guidelines range); United States v. Tadeo, 222 F.3d 623, 625 (9th Cir. 2000) (explaining that court may reject suggested Guidelines range and impose sentence within statutory maximum). Under the circumstances, we cannot say the sentence was unreasonable.