FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 21 2013
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. 12-30293
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 2:08-cr-02070-LRS
v.
MEMORANDUM *
MATILDA LUCILLE JIM,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Washington
Lonny R. Suko, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 18, 2013 **
Before: TALLMAN, M. SMITH, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Matilda Lucille Jim appeals from the district court’s judgment and
challenges the 31-month term of supervised release imposed following 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).
Jim contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to explain
adequately the basis for imposing a 31-month term of supervised release. The
record reflects that the court considered Jim’s arguments and adequately explained
the reasons for the sentence, including safety to the public and incentive for Jim to
comply with the term of supervised release. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d
984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc).
Jim also contends that her sentence is substantively unreasonable. The
district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing Jim’s sentence. See Gall v.
United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The sentence is substantively reasonable in
light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) sentencing factors and the totality of the
circumstances, including Jim’s history and the need to protect the public. See id.;
United States v. Simtob, 485 F.3d 1058, 1062-63 (9th Cir. 2007).
AFFIRMED.
2 12-30293