707 F. App'x 491
9th Cir.
2017

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Joshua David FINK, a.k.a. David Joshua Fink, a.k.a. Wolverine, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-50412

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted December 18, 2017 Filed December 22, 2017

707 F. App‘x 491

L. Ashley Aull, Assistant U.S. Attorney, A. Carley Palmer, Assistant U.S. Attorney, DOJ—Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Alyssa D. Bell, Deputy Federal Public Defender, FPDCA—Federal Public Defender‘s Office (Los Angeles) Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellant

Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM **

Joshua David Fink appeals from the district court‘s judgment and challenges the concurrent 63-month sentences imposed following his guilty-plea convictions for being a felon in possession of firearms and ammunition, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), and possession of an unregistered firearm, in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 5861(d). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Fink contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to provide an adequate explanation for its rejection of Fink‘s argument that his criminal history category overrepresented the seriousness of his criminal history. Because Fink raises this contention for the first time on appeal, we review for plain error. See . The district court expressly discussed Fink‘s argument regarding his criminal history category and ultimately determined that a downward variance was not warranted be- cause the circumstances of Fink‘s crimes of conviction demonstrated that he posed a danger to the public. The record as a whole reflects the basis for the district court‘s determination, and the district court did not plainly err in its explanation. See (en banc) (“[A]dequate explanation in some cases may also be inferred from the PSR or the record as a whole.“).

AFFIRMED.

Matthew LOPEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NAC MARKETING COMPANY, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company and Does, 1-10, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 16-55602

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted December 7, 2017 Pasadena, California Filed December 22, 2017

707 F. App‘x 492

Scott J. Ferrell, Attorney, Victoria C. Knowles, David Reid, Newport Trial Group, Newport Beach, CA, Richard H. Hikida, Attorney, Irvine, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant

Matthew I. Kaplan, Ronie Schmelz, Tucker Ellis & West, LLP, Los Angeles, CA, Daniel James Kelly, Attorney, Tucker Ellis LLP, San Francisco, CA, Jeffrey Charles Sindelar, Jr., Esquire, Tucker Ellis LLP, Cleveland, OH, for Defendant-Appellee

Before: WARDLAW and GOULD, Circuit Judges, and COLLINS,** Chief District Judge.

MEMORANDUM ***

Matthew Lopez appeals the district court‘s denial of his motion for attorney‘s fees and costs under California Code of Civil Procedure § 1021.5, California‘s catalyst theory of recovery. Because the district court properly found that Lopez failed to engage in any meaningful attempt to settle his dispute with NAC Marketing Company, LLC (NAC) short of filing the complaint, we affirm.

1. We review a district court‘s award of attorney‘s fees under an abuse of discretion standard. . We review the underlying factual determinations for clear error and review any legal analysis relevant to the fee determination de novo.

Notes

**
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. The Honorable Raner C. Collins, Chief United States District Judge for the District of Arizona, sitting by designation.
***
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.