
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James Robert BLODGETT, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 08-30287.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Aug. 23, 2010.
    
    Filed Sept. 2, 2010.
    Joseph E. Thaggard, USHE-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Helena, MT, Joshua A. Van de Wetering, Esquire, USMI-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Missoula, MT, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    John Rhodes, Esquire, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Defenders of Montana, Missoula, MT, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: LEAVY, HAWKINS, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

James Robert Blodgett appeals from the time-served sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for possession with intent to distribute marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), to be served consecutively to a 60-month sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction for possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug-trafficking crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Blodgett contends that the district court erred by failing to rule on his objections to disputed facts in the presentence report and relying upon such facts when imposing the sentence, in violation of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32(i)(3)(B). This contention fails because the district court did not rely upon any disputed facts at sentencing. See United States v. Saeteurn, 504 F.3d 1175, 1178 (9th Cir.2007).

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