United States v. Lichtenberg, 631 F.3d 1021

Lichtenberg was convicted of wire fraud, money laundering and making a false statement on a passport application based on a Kauai real estate transaction where funds were improperly wired to his trust account.
He wired $100,000 to Indonesia and used cashier's checks to himself, then transferred savings to an Indonesian bank and fled using a fraudulently obtained passport.
At original sentencing, the district court applied guidelines with enhancements and contemplated an 138-month sentence but ultimately imposed 126 months after partial restitution work and disclosure.
This court reversed two money laundering counts on appeal but affirmed other aspects and remanded to resolve the criminal-history issue from state protective-order convictions.
At resentencing, the district court again imposed an above-Guidelines term (112 months) after considering additional, non-guideline factors related to restitution and ongoing deceit.
Lichtenberg appealed, challenging criminal-history calculations and the reasonableness of an above-Guidelines sentence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether state protective-order convictions are similar to contempt of court for criminal-history purposes	Lichtenberg contends Hawaii protective-order violations mirror contempt of court and should be excluded.	Lichtenberg argues the Hawaii offense is dissimilar to contempt due to victim, elements, and risk.	Criminal history inclusion affirmed; Hawaii violation deemed dissimilar to contempt.
Whether the above-Guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable given additional non-guideline factors	Lichtenberg argues factors beyond the guidelines justified departure from the range.	Lichtenberg contends the sentence relies on permissible, non-guideline considerations to deter restitution and flight.	112-month sentence affirmed as reasonable under deferential review.

United States v. Grob, 625 F.3d 1209 (9th Cir. 2010) (multifactor test for similarity under 4A1.2(c)(1) to determine non-listed offenses)
United States v. Kemp, 938 F.2d 1020 (9th Cir. 1991) (comparison between federal and state offense for similarity analysis)
United States v. Bastian, 650 F.Supp.2d 849 (N.D. Iowa 2009) (protective order violation involves risk of immediate harm and distinguishes from contempt)
Young v. United States, 481 U.S. 787 (U.S. 1987) (criminal contempt serves vindicating judicial authority; context for penalties)
United States v. Amezcua-Vasquez, 567 F.3d 1050 (9th Cir. 2009) (review of reasonableness under Booker-era standard)
United States v. Mohamed, 459 F.3d 979 (9th Cir. 2006) (reasonableness review of sentences post-Booker)