United States v. Aaron Beaird , 551 F. App'x 302 ( 2013 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 30 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 13-30018
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 2:12-cr-00247-RSM
v.
MEMORANDUM*
AARON TRAVIS BEAIRD,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
Ricardo S. Martinez, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 17, 2013**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Aaron Travis Beaird appeals from the district court’s judgment and
challenges the 84-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for
wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343; and mail fraud, in violation of 28
U.S.C. § 1341. 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).
Beaird contends that the district court violated his due process rights by
failing to give him notice of its intent to depart upwards from the Sentencing
Guideline range, in violation of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32(h).
Because the district court imposed an upward variance, it was not required to give
notice under Rule 32(h). See Irizarry v. United States, 553 U.S. 708, 714 (2008).
Beaird next contends that the district court erred by finding that Beaird’s
conduct fell outside the heartland of fraud cases. The district court properly
tailored its sentence to the specific characteristics of Beaird and the offense. See
United States v. Treadwell, 593 F.3d 990, 1012 (9th Cir. 2010).
Finally, Beaird contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable in
light of mitigating factors, such as his immediate acceptance of responsibility and
commitment to paying restitution. The district court did not abuse its discretion in
imposing Beaird’s sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007).
The above-Guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, including the
length of time Beaird engaged in the fraudulent scheme and his close connection to
the victims. See id.AFFIRMED.
2 13-30018