FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION OCT 05 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 10-30025
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 2:05-cr-00118-WFN
v.
MEMORANDUM *
TYRONE YARBROUGH,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Washington
Wm. Fremming Nielsen, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 13, 2010 **
Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Tyrone Yarbrough appeals from the 24-month sentence imposed following
the revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1291, and we affirm.
Yarbrough contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to
*
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).
properly calculate the Guidelines range and by not adequately explaining the
sentence in context of the relevant sentencing factors. The record reflects that the
district court properly found that Yarbrough committed a Grade B violation. See
21 U.S.C. 844(a); see also United States v. Baclaan, 948 F.2d 628, 629 (9th Cir.
1991). Furthermore, the district court conducted a well-reasoned and thorough
evaluation of the statutory sentencing factors prior to imposing the sentence. See
United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 991-93 (9th Cir. 2008).
Yarbrough also contends that the district court procedurally erred and that
the sentence imposed was substantively unreasonable because the court relied on
an impermissible factor in arriving at the sentence. The district court’s sentence
was not intended to punish Yarbrough for his prior unsuccessful treatment and the
costs associated with that treatment. Rather, the district court properly considered
those factors as part of the nature and circumstances of the offense and the history
and characteristics of the defendant. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1); see also United
States v. Simtob, 485 F.3d 1058, 1062 (9th Cir. 2007). 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, 50-51 (2007).
AFFIRMED.
2 10-30025