United States of America v. Timothy Bruce Ruddle

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).
GT/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
TIMOTHY BRUCE RUDDLE,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 09-30189
D.C. No. 4:08-cr-00141-SEH
MEMORANDUM *
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Montana
Sam E. Haddon, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 16, 2010**
Before: SCHROEDER, PREGERSON, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Timothy Bruce Ruddle appeals from his 210-month sentence imposed
following a guilty-plea conviction for receipt of child pornography, in violation of
FILED
MAR 29 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

GT/Research 09-30189 2
18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(2). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and
we affirm.
Ruddle contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing
adequately to explain the sentence imposed and that the sentence, at the high-end
of the Sentencing Guidelines, is substantively unreasonable. The record reflects
that the district court adequately explained the sentence. See United States v.
Perez-Perez, 512 F.3d 514, 516-17 (9th Cir. 2008). Further, in light of the totality
of the circumstances and the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), the sentence
is not unreasonable. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --