United States v. Stephen Farrell

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION OCT 28 2010 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 10-30137 Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 6:08-cr-00023-DWM v. MEMORANDUM * STEPHEN FARRELL, Defendant - Appellant. 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. * 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). 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 10-30137