United States v. Roberto Duran , 397 F. App'x 335 ( 2010 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION SEP 27 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 09-50114
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 2:07-cr-01042-SVW
v.
ROBERTO DURAN, MEMORANDUM *
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Stephen V. Wilson, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 13, 2010 **
Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
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.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
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.
2 09-50114