
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Patrick RANEY, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 11-10484.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted May 15, 2012.
    
    Decided May 18, 2012.
    Eric Johnson, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Robert Lawrence Ellman, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Las Vegas, NV, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Brenda Weksler, Esquire, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Las Vegas, NV, for Defendant-Appellant.
    
      Before: CANBY, GRABER, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Patrick Raney appeals from the 87-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.

Raney contends that the sentence is substantively unreasonable because the district court failed to consider several of his mitigating arguments. The record reflects that the district court considered Raney’s arguments in mitigation, and engaged in a thorough analysis of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors, before concluding that a sentence at the high end of the adjusted Guidelines range was appropriate. The sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the totality of the circumstances and the section 3553(a) sentencing factors. 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.
     