
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kristin Marie BAUMAN-ARMELIN, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 06-50538.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted April 22, 2008.
    
    Filed April 29, 2008.
    Roger W. Haines, Jr., Christina M. McCall, Office of The U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Donald A. Nunn, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: GRABER, FISHER, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Kristin Marie Bauman-Armelin appeals from the 60-month sentence imposed following her guilty-plea conviction for possession of marijuana "with intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952 and 960. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Bauman-Armelin contends that the district court’s statement of reasons for imposing a sentence above the advisory Guidelines range did not satisfy 18 U.S.C. § 3553(c)(2). She also contends that her sentence is unreasonable in light of the factors set forth in § 3553(a). We conclude that the district court did not commit procedural error and that the sentence imposed is substantively reasonable. See Gall v. United States, — U.S.-, 128 S.Ct. 586, 591, 598-602, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007) (“[Cjourts of appeals must review all sentences — whether inside, just outside, or significantly outside the Guidelines range — under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard”); see also Rita v. United States, — U.S. -, 127 S.Ct. 2456, 2468-69, 168 L.Ed.2d 203 (2007); United States v. Daychild, 357 F.3d 1082, 1107-08 (9th Cir.2004).

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