463 F. App'x 647
9th Cir.
2011

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Andy Lee POLLARD, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 10-50545.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 19, 2011. Filed Dec. 22, 2011.

455 Fed. Appx. 647

Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.

U.S. Attorney, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee. Kathryn Ann Young, FPDCA-Federal Public Defender’s Office, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.

MEMORANDUM**

Andy Lee Pollard appeals from his 30-month sentence following his convictions for conspiracy and counterfeiting obligations or securities of the United States, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 371 and 471. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Pollard makes several contentions of procedural error. Specifically he contends that the court imposed a sentence based upon a clearly erroneous fact, that he was never employed; failed to consider his cooperation; gave too much weight to his criminal history; and failed to consider the unwarranted sentence disparity between Pollard and his co-defendants. These contentions are belied by the record.

Pollard also contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable. Specifically, he contends that the court imposed and or lengthened his sentence to promote rehabilitation. Contrary to his contention, the record reflects that Pollard’s sentence was not based on his rehabilitative needs. See Tapia v. United States, — U.S. —, 131 S.Ct. 2382, 2392, 180 L.Ed.2d 357 (2011). Pollard’s sentence, three month below the Guidelines range is substantive reasonably in light of the totality of the circumstances and the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992–93 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc); see also United States v. Gutierrez-Sanchez, 587 F.3d 904, 908 (9th Cir.2009) (“The weight to be given the various [§ 3553(a) sentencing] factors in a particular case is for the discretion of the district court.”).

AFFIRMED.

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Dana Ray REYNOLDS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 10-50546.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 19, 2011. Filed Dec. 22, 2011.

455 Fed. Appx. 647

Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.

Lawrence Middleton, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Michael J. Raphael, Esquire, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee. Brett A. Greenfield, David Elliot Kenner, Esquire, Special Trial Counsel, Kenner Law Firm, APC, Encino, CA, Lewis Richard Walton, Jr., Esquire, Dykema Gossett LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.

MEMORANDUM**

Dana Ray Reynolds appeals from the 18-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for subscribing to a false tax return, in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7206(1). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Reynolds contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to properly consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors, and instead imposed a sentence based on the court’s displeasure with how the United States Attorney’s office handled tax cases, assumed the nature of the offense was more serious, and punished him for conduct other than what he pled guilty to.

The record reflects that the district court considered the relevant sentencing factors, in conjunction with Reynold’s mitigating arguments, but found the circumstances insufficient to warrant a sentence below the one imposed. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). Reynold’s sentence was based on the admissions made pursuant to his plea agreement, the seriousness of the offense, the need to protect the public, and the need to provide adequate deterrence.

The two-month above-Guideline sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the totality of the circumstances and the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992–93 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc).

AFFIRMED.

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michael Tredell JONES, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 10-50549.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 19, 2011. Filed Dec. 22, 2011.

455 Fed. Appx. 649

Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.

Michael J. Raphael, Esquire, Joshua Robbins, Assistant U.S. Attorneys, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee. W. Michael Mayock, Esquire, Law Office of W. Michael Mayock, Pasadena, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.

MEMORANDUM**

Michael Tredell Jones appeals from his 18-month sentence following his jury-trial convictions for conspiracy and counterfeiting obligations or securities of the United States, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 371 and 471. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Jones contends that the district court erred when it applied enchantments to his Guideline calculation pursuant to U.S.S.G. §§ 2B5.1(b)(2)(A) and (b)(3). In light of the jury’s verdict, the district court did not err in applying the enhancements. See United States v. Armstead, 552 F.3d 769, 777 (9th Cir.2008).

AFFIRMED.

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Bao Q. TRUONG, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 10-50607.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted Nov. 7, 2011. Filed Dec. 22, 2011.

455 Fed. Appx. 649

Notes

*
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2). The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
**
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.