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:T510,MEMORANDUM Byron B. Yellowbear, Jr. appeals from the 180-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for aggravated sexual abuse, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1153 (a) and 2241(a)(1). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm. Yellowbear contends that the district court erred by failing to adequately explain the sentence and by using a disputed fact when imposing the sentence. The record reflects that the district court expressly justified the sentence in terms of the applicable § 3553(a) factors. Furthermore, there is nothing in the record to indicate that the district court relied on a disputed fact when imposing the sentence. The district court did not procedurally err. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 49-50 , 128 S.Ct. 586 , 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). Yellowbear also contends that the district court’s imposition of a sentence toward the high end of the advisory Guidelines range was greater than necessary to comply with the purposes of sentencing set forth in § 3553(a). We conclude that the sentence is substantively reasonable. United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 991-93 (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:T542,

MEMORANDUM

Byron B. Yellowbear, Jr. appeals from the 180-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for aggravated sexual abuse, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1153 (a) and 2241(a)(1). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

Yellowbear contends that the district court erred by failing to adequately explain the sentence and by using a disputed fact when imposing the sentence. The record reflects that the district court expressly justified the sentence in terms of the applicable § 3553(a) factors. Furthermore, there is nothing in the record to indicate that the district court relied on a disputed fact when imposing the sentence. The district court did not procedurally err. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 49-50 , 128 S.Ct. 586 , 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007).

Yellowbear also contends that the district court’s imposition of a sentence toward the high end of the advisory Guidelines range was greater than necessary to comply with the purposes of sentencing set forth in § 3553(a). We conclude that the sentence is substantively reasonable. United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 991-93 (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.