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:T4f2,MEMORANDUM Wyatt Bird appeals from the 96-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922 (g)(1) and 924(a)(2). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm. Bird first contends that the district court committed procedural error by failing to consider his mitigation arguments and failing adequately to explain the reasons for the sentence selected. These contentions fail because the district court’s explanation was sufficient to communicate that it “considered the parties’ arguments and ha[d] a reasoned basis for exercising [its] own legal decisionmaking authority.” Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 356 , 127 S.Ct. 2456 , 168 L.Ed.2d 203 (2007). Bird also contends that his sentence.is substantively unreasonable. In light of the totality of the circumstances, including Bird’s significant criminal history, as well as the 18 U.S.C. § 3553 (a) sentencing factors, the above-Guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 , 128 S.Ct. 586 , 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provid ed by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.24:T524,

MEMORANDUM

Wyatt Bird appeals from the 96-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922 (g)(1) and 924(a)(2). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

Bird first contends that the district court committed procedural error by failing to consider his mitigation arguments and failing adequately to explain the reasons for the sentence selected. These contentions fail because the district court’s explanation was sufficient to communicate that it “considered the parties’ arguments and ha[d] a reasoned basis for exercising [its] own legal decisionmaking authority.” Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 356 , 127 S.Ct. 2456 , 168 L.Ed.2d 203 (2007).

Bird also contends that his sentence.is substantively unreasonable. In light of the totality of the circumstances, including Bird’s significant criminal history, as well as the 18 U.S.C. § 3553 (a) sentencing factors, the above-Guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 , 128 S.Ct. 586 , 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007).

AFFIRMED.

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