From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

U.S. v. Duran

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Sep 27, 2010
397 F. App'x 335 (9th Cir. 2010)

Opinion

No. 09-50114.

Submitted September 13, 2010.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a)(2).

Filed September 27, 2010.

Lamar Baker, Michael J. Raphael, Esquire, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Karyn H. Bucur, Esquire, Attorney at Law, Laguna Hills, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Stephen V. Wilson, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. 2:07-cr-01042-SVW.

Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.



MEMORANDUM

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

Roberto Duran appeals from the 36-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for wire fraud and aiding and abetting, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2 and 1343. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Duran contends the district court procedurally erred by failing to calculate the Sentencing Guidelines range before announcing its sentence. This contention is unpersuasive. The record reflects that the district court complied with the requirements set forth in United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 991-93 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc).

Duran further contends the district court failed to recalculate the Guidelines range after rejecting the presentence report's recommendation concerning his criminal history category. Because the district court correctly calculated the Guidelines range as 21 to 27 months imprisonment, the district court did not procedurally err by not recalculating the Guidelines range when discussing the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors.

Finally, Duran contends the district court abused its discretion by failing to consider the factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3664(f)(2) when establishing a restitution schedule of $2,000 a month upon release from prison. This contention is belied by the record. See United States v. Booth, 309 F.3d 566, 576 (9th Cir. 2002) (rejecting challenge to restitution payment schedule).

AFFIRMED.


Summaries of

U.S. v. Duran

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Sep 27, 2010
397 F. App'x 335 (9th Cir. 2010)
Case details for

U.S. v. Duran

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Roberto DURAN…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Sep 27, 2010

Citations

397 F. App'x 335 (9th Cir. 2010)