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:T415,MEMORANDUM Eugene Gerrard appeals from the 30-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for possession of child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252 (a)(4). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm. Gerrard contends that the district court committed procedural error by relying on personal knowledge and unsupported facts in determining the sentence. We review for plain error, see United States v. Grant, 664 F.3d 276, 279 (9th Cir.2011), and we find none. The record reflects that the district court’s characterization of Gerrard’s offense conduct and his history and characteristics was not improper. See United States v. Autery, 555 F.3d 864, 874-75 (9th Cir.2009). Furthermore, Gerrard has not demonstrated that the alleged factual errors by the district court affected his substantial rights. See United States v. Dallman, 533 F.3d 755, 761-62 (9th Cir.2008). AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.24:T442,

MEMORANDUM

Eugene Gerrard appeals from the 30-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for possession of child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252 (a)(4). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

Gerrard contends that the district court committed procedural error by relying on personal knowledge and unsupported facts in determining the sentence. We review for plain error, see United States v. Grant, 664 F.3d 276, 279 (9th Cir.2011), and we find none. The record reflects that the district court’s characterization of Gerrard’s offense conduct and his history and characteristics was not improper. See United States v. Autery, 555 F.3d 864, 874-75 (9th Cir.2009). Furthermore, Gerrard has not demonstrated that the alleged factual errors by the district court affected his substantial rights. See United States v. Dallman, 533 F.3d 755, 761-62 (9th Cir.2008).

AFFIRMED.

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