United States of America v. Stephen Farrell

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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.
STEPHEN FARRELL,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 10-30137
D.C. No. 6:08-cr-00023-DWM
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Montana
Donald W. Molloy, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted October 19, 2010**
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, TALLMAN, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
Stephen Farrell appeals from the ten-month sentence imposed upon
revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291,
and we affirm.
FILED
OCT 28 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

10-30137 2
Farrell contends that the district court erred by considering impermissible
factors at sentencing. The record shows that the district court did not rely on
impermissible factors “as a primary basis for [the] revocation sentence.” United
States v. Miqbel, 444 F.3d 1173, 1182 (9th Cir. 2006).
Farrell also contends that the sentence imposed is substantively
unreasonable. In light of the totality of the circumstances, the sentence is
substantively reasonable. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 993 (9th Cir.
2008) (en banc).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --