United States v. Nefrititi Luv , 439 F. App'x 674 ( 2011 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 24 2011
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. 10-10484
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 3:09-cr-01113-JSW
v.
MEMORANDUM *
NEFRITITI LUV,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Jeffrey S. White, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 15, 2011 **
Before: CANBY, O’SCANNLAIN, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Nefrititi Luv appeals from the 27-month sentence imposed following her
guilty-plea conviction for mail fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1341, and failure
to file a tax return, in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7203. 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).
Luv first contends that the district court committed procedural error by
providing an inadequate explanation of the sentence selected, and relying on
clearly erroneous facts. The record belies these contentions. There was no
procedural error. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 993 (9th Cir. 2008) (en
banc).
Luv next contends that her sentence is substantively unreasonable. She
argues that the court gave insufficient weight to her mitigation arguments,
overemphasized the seriousness of the offense and the need for deterrence, and
committed several other errors that resulted in a substantively unreasonable
sentence. Luv’s contentions are unavailing. The court conducted an
individualized assessment of Luv’s case, giving due consideration to her mitigation
arguments and the full scope of her conduct. See 18 U.S.C. § 3661 (“No limitation
shall be placed on the information concerning the background, character, and
conduct of a person convicted of an offense which a court of the United States may
receive and consider for the purpose of imposing an appropriate sentence.”). In
addition, it gave appropriate consideration to the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors; it
“did not give [any] factor impermissible weight or ignore or downplay the other
factors.” United States v. Gutierrez-Sanchez, 587 F.3d 904, 908 (9th Cir. 2009).
In light of the totality of the circumstances and the § 3553(a) factors, Luv’s
2 10-10484
sentence at the bottom of the Guidelines range is substantively reasonable. See
Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007).
AFFIRMED.
3 10-10484