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:T4a2,MEMORANDUM Tammy Lynn Cadotte appeals from the 20-month sentence imposed following her guilty-plea conviction for misprision of felony, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 4 . We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm. Cadotte contends that her sentence is substantively unreasonable because it does not reflect the 18 U.S.C. § 3553 (a) factors, including mitigating factors related to Ca-dotte’s history and characteristics. The district court considered Cadotte’s mitigation evidence, including testimony regarding abuse by her husband, and concluded that a 20-month sentence was warranted. In light of the totality of the circumstances and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553 (a) sentencing factors, this was not an abuse of discretion. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 , 128 S.Ct. 586 , 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007); United States v. Whitehead, 532 F.3d 991, 993 (9th Cir.2008) (per curiam) (no abuse of discretion where the sentence is based on facts, including defendant’s credibility, as found by the district court at the sentencing hearing). AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.24:T4cf,

MEMORANDUM

Tammy Lynn Cadotte appeals from the 20-month sentence imposed following her guilty-plea conviction for misprision of felony, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 4 . We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

Cadotte contends that her sentence is substantively unreasonable because it does not reflect the 18 U.S.C. § 3553 (a) factors, including mitigating factors related to Ca-dotte’s history and characteristics. The district court considered Cadotte’s mitigation evidence, including testimony regarding abuse by her husband, and concluded that a 20-month sentence was warranted. In light of the totality of the circumstances and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553 (a) sentencing factors, this was not an abuse of discretion. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 , 128 S.Ct. 586 , 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007); United States v. Whitehead, 532 F.3d 991, 993 (9th Cir.2008) (per curiam) (no abuse of discretion where the sentence is based on facts, including defendant’s credibility, as found by the district court at the sentencing hearing).

AFFIRMED.

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