
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Scott HEDDINGS, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 14-30002.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted March 4, 2015.
    
    Filed March 17, 2015.
    Ryan George Weldon, Assistant U.S., Leif Johnson, Assistant U.S., USBI-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Billings, MT, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Mark D. Meyer, Ugrin Alexander Za-dick & Higgins, PC, Great Falls, MT, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: FISHER, PAEZ, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Scott Heddings appeals the district court’s sentence of 240 months in prison following his guilty plea for receipt of child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a) (2) and destruction or removal of property to prevent seizure in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2232(a). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.

The district court stated that Heddings’s Montana conviction for felony incest was the basis for increasing his offense level for the federal offense under § 2G2.2(b)(5) of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines. Because Heddings’s Missouri convictions for sexual abuse and felony statutory sodomy were not the basis for an increase in the offense level for the federal offense, the district court did not err in declining to apply § 5G1.3(b) (2013) of the Guidelines to impose the sentence on the federal offense to run concurrently with the Missouri sentences. Nor did the district court abuse its discretion in ordering the sentence on the federal offense to run consecutively to the Missouri sentences under § 5G1.3(e) of the Guidelines. See United States v. Shouse, 755 F.3d 1104, 1108-09 (9th Cir.2014).

As Heddings does not appeal his conviction or allege that his plea was involuntary, United States v. Neely, 38 F.3d 458 (9th Cir.1994) (per curiam), is not applicable to a review of Heddings’s sentence on appeal.

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