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:T490,MEMORANDUM Shane Jon Braaten appeals from the 110-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for receipt of child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(2). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm. Braaten contends that the district court failed to explain adequately the basis for its sentence and ignored his policy arguments challenging the child pornography Guideline. The record reflects that the court sufficiently explained the reasons for imposing the below-Guidelines sentence, and that it considered Braaten’s arguments. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992-93 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc); United States v. Perez-Perez, 512 F.3d 514, 516 (9th Cir.2008). Braaten also contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable. In light of the totality of the circumstances and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553 (a) sentencing factors, Braaten’s below-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 provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.24:T4c2,

MEMORANDUM

Shane Jon Braaten appeals from the 110-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for receipt of child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(2). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

Braaten contends that the district court failed to explain adequately the basis for its sentence and ignored his policy arguments challenging the child pornography Guideline. The record reflects that the court sufficiently explained the reasons for imposing the below-Guidelines sentence, and that it considered Braaten’s arguments. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992-93 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc); United States v. Perez-Perez, 512 F.3d 514, 516 (9th Cir.2008).

Braaten also contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable. In light of the totality of the circumstances and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553 (a) sentencing factors, Braaten’s below-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 provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.