United States of America v. EDWARD KEITH STRILEY, Jr.

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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.
EDWARD KEITH STRILEY, Jr.,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 11-10129
D.C. No. 2:10-cr-00225-GMN-
RJJ-1
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Gloria M. Navarro, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 17, 2012**
Before: LEAVY, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Edward Keith Striley, Jr. appeals from the 151-month sentence imposed
following his guilty-plea conviction for bank robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 2113(a). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
FILED
JAN 19 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

11-10129 2
Striley contends the sentence is substantively unreasonable because the
district court failed to exercise its discretion to vary from the career offender
Guideline, which he argues is not supported by empirical evidence or national
experience. The record reflects that the district court was aware of its discretion to
depart from the Guideline, and in light of the totality of the circumstances and the
18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors, the bottom-of-the-Guidelines sentence is
substantively reasonable. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 993 (9th Cir.
2008) (en banc); United States v. Henderson, 649 F.3d 955, 964 (9th Cir. 2011)
(“District courts are not obligated to vary from the [career offender] Guidelines on
policy grounds if they do not have, in fact, a policy disagreement with them.”).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --