
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Peter Jerald FROMMER, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 11-50146.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Oct. 12, 2012.
    
    Filed Oct. 29, 2012.
    Curtis Arthur Kin, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Ellyn Marcus Lindsay, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los An-geles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Richard A. Levy, Esquire, Torrance, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: KLEINFELD and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges, and QUIST, Senior District Judge.
    
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
    
      
       The Honorable Gordon J. Quist, Senior District Judge for the U.S. District Court for Western Michigan, sitting by designation.
    
   MEMORANDUM

Peter Frommer appeals his sentence of 108 months. We reject his arguments and affirm. We have jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a).

We review whether the district court made sufficient factual findings de novo. U.S. v. Forrester, 616 F.3d 929, 934 (9th Cir.2010). We review substantive reasonableness of the sentence for abuse of discretion. Gall v. U.S., 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). From-mer failed to object to the district judge’s treatment of the sentencing factors below, so we review for plain error. U.S. v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir.2010).

The district court made sufficient findings of fact and resolved the factual disputes by adopting the prosecution’s position. U.S. v. Karterman, 60 F.3d 576 (9th Cir.1995). Considering the manner in which Frommer committed the crime and the severe victim impact, the district court did not abuse its discretion by sentencing above the guidelines. Finally, the district court did not plainly err in considering the necessary sentencing factors. U.S. v. Daniels, 541 F.3d 915, 922 (9th Cir.2008).

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