United States of America, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Michael Dwayne Dearman, Defendant-appellant, 990 F.2d 1261 (9th Cir. 1993)

MEMORANDUM^** 

Michael Dwayne Dearman appeals his 120-month sentence after his guilty plea to possession of a firearm by a felon in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) (1). Dearman contends that the district court erred by failing to state its reasons for choosing the sentence within the applicable Guidelines range. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm.

We review de novo whether the district court adequately stated reasons for imposing a sentence within the Guidelines range. United States v. Johnson, 953 F.2d 1167, 1173 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 113 S. Ct. 226 (1992). The district court is only required to provide a statement of reasons for choosing a particular sentence if the span of the applicable Guidelines range exceeds twenty-four months. United States v. Howard, 894 F.2d 1085, 1092 (9th Cir. 1990).

Here, the district court determined that the applicable Guidelines range was 100 to 125 months, but added that 18 U.S.C. § 924(a) (2) provided for a maximum ten-year sentence, thus narrowing the actual range to 100-120 months, see U.S.S.G. § 5G1.1(c) (1).

Because the applicable Guidelines range was only twenty months, the district court was not required to provide any reasons for selecting the 120-month sentence. See Howard, 894 F.2d at 1092 (section 3553(c) inapplicable where Guidelines range did not exceed twenty-four months); cf. Johnson, 953 F.2d at 1173 n. 13 (section 3553(c) applicable where Guidelines range was 210 to 262 months, but statute only provided a 240-month maximum sentence, thereby producing a thirty-month range). Accordingly, we hold no error.

AFFIRMED.