United States of America v. Gregory A. Connelly

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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.
GREGORY A. CONNELLY,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 09-30196
D.C. No. 2:06-cr-02013-RHW
MEMORANDUM *
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Washington
Robert H. Whaley, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 5, 2010**
Before: RYMER, McKEOWN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Gregory A. Connelly 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
APR 19 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

09-30196 2
Connelly contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to
adequately explain its sentence in terms of the applicable statutory sentencing
factors, and that the sentence was substantively unreasonable in light of the facts of
the case. The record reflects that the district court’s explanation for imposing the
sentence was sufficient. See United States v. Miqbel, 444 F.3d 1173, 1181-82 (9th
Cir. 2006); see also 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e). The district court did not procedurally
err, and the sentence imposed is substantively reasonable under the totality of the
circumstances. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007); see also United
States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 993 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --