United States of America v. Justin Duane Corbray

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JUSTIN DUANE CORBRAY,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 11-30185
D.C. No. 2:08-cr-02027-FVS
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Washington
Fred L. Van Sickle, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 21, 2012**
Before: FERNANDEZ, McKEOWN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Justin Duane Corbray appeals from the 24-month sentence imposed
following the revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
FILED
MAR 05 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

11-30185 2
Corbray contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to
calculate the applicable Sentencing Guidelines range. This contention lacks merit
as the record reflects that the district court adopted the undisputed Guidelines range
calculated in the petition to revoke supervised release, and provided sufficient
reasons for imposing a sentence at the statutory maximum. See United States v.
Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 993 (9th Cir.2008).
Corbray also contends that the sentence imposed is substantively
unreasonable. The sentence is substantively reasonable under the totality of the
circumstances and in light of the sentencing factors set forth in 18 U.S.C.
§§ 3553(a) and 3553(e). See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007); United
States v. Miqbel, 444 F.3d 1173, 1182 (9th Cir. 2006).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --