22:I[98912,["/_next/static/chunks/0asocxi83kb~5.js","/_next/static/chunks/0n4z.7yu76je-.js","/_next/static/chunks/0eyt_ou8dj52g.js","/_next/static/chunks/01bcia3bjqt9z.js","/_next/static/chunks/15egrlmmf_yst.js"],"CaseDetailGate"] 23:T51c,MEMORANDUM Jesse Lee Knife appeals from the 63-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for two counts of assault resulting in serious bodily injury, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1153 (a) and 113(a)(6). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm. Knife contends that his sentence is unreasonable in light of United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 , 125 S.Ct. 738 , 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), and 18 U.S.C. § 3553 (a), because the district court overstated the offense conduct and failed to sufficiently consider his history and characteristics. The record reflects that the district court carefully considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553 (a) sentencing factors, including Knife’s history and characteristics and his argument for a sentence below the advisory Guidelines range, and provided a well-reasoned and thorough explanation for the sentence imposed. The district court did not procedurally err, and the sentence is substantively reasonable under the totality of the circumstances. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 , 128 S.Ct. 586 , 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007); see also United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 993 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc). AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.24:T549,

MEMORANDUM

Jesse Lee Knife appeals from the 63-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for two counts of assault resulting in serious bodily injury, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1153 (a) and 113(a)(6). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

Knife contends that his sentence is unreasonable in light of United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 , 125 S.Ct. 738 , 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), and 18 U.S.C. § 3553 (a), because the district court overstated the offense conduct and failed to sufficiently consider his history and characteristics. The record reflects that the district court carefully considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553 (a) sentencing factors, including Knife’s history and characteristics and his argument for a sentence below the advisory Guidelines range, and provided a well-reasoned and thorough explanation for the sentence imposed. The district court did not procedurally err, and the sentence is substantively reasonable under the totality of the circumstances. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 , 128 S.Ct. 586 , 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007); see also United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 993 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc).

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.