United States v. Ness

MEMORANDUM ** Christopher Kyle Ness appeals from the 16-month and 20-day sentence imposed following revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review the sentence for reasonableness, see United States v. Miqbel, 444 F.3d 1173 , 1176 & n. 5 (9th Cir.2006), and we affirm. Ness contends that the district court erred by failing to consider educational and vocational training pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3553 (a)(2)(D), when imposing a consecutive sentence following revocation of supervised release. Because the record reflects that the district court properly weighed and considered factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553 (a), we conclude that Ness’ sentence was reasonable. See United States v. Mix, 457 F.3d 906, 912 (9th Cir.2006) (“A district court is not required to refer to each factor listed in § 3553(a)”); United States v. Marcial-Santiago, 447 F.3d 715, 719 (9th Cir.) (affirming where the district court “gave thoughtful attention to factors recognized in § 3553(a) and exercised sound discretion”), cert. denied *621 sub nom. Acosta-Franco v. United States, — U.S. -, 127 S.Ct. 309 , 166 L.Ed.2d 232 (2006). AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.