United States v. Jason Christensen , 392 F. App'x 602 ( 2010 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION AUG 24 2010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. 09-30372
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 2:08-cr-06027-LRS-1
v.
MEMORANDUM *
JASON PAUL CHRISTENSEN,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Washington
Lonny R. Suko, Chief District Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 7, 2010 **
San Francisco, California
Before: HUG, SKOPIL and BEEZER, Circuit Judges.
Defendant-appellant Jason Paul Christensen (“Christensen”) appeals from a
final judgment convicting him of eight counts of mail fraud, in violation of 18
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
U.S.C. § 1341, and eight counts of money laundering, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 1956(a)(1)(A)(i). Christensen pleaded guilty with a plea agreement, and the
district court sentenced him to 109 months imprisonment, 12 months less than the
low end of the applicable guidelines range.
We have jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we
affirm.
The facts of this case are known to the parties. We do not repeat them.
I
When the defendant does not object to a purported procedural error, we
review the district court’s actions for plain error. United States v. Ameline, 409
F.3d 1073, 1078 (9th Cir. 2005) (en banc).
We review all sentencing decisions for an abuse of discretion. United States
v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 993 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc).
2
II
Christensen fails to show that the district court committed any procedural
error at all, much less one “that affects substantial rights.” United States v.
Sylvester Norman Knows His Gun, III, 438 F.3d 913, 918 (9th Cir. 2006) (internal
quotations and citations omitted).
Likewise, the record indicates that the district court properly exercised its
discretion and imposed a substantively reasonable sentence.1 The district court
thoughtfully considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors and imposed a sentence
that was 12 months less than the low end of the applicable advisory guidelines
range. See United States v. Plouffe, 445 F.3d 1126, 1131 (9th Cir. 2006) (stating
that the determination whether a sentence is substantively reasonable is “guided by
1
We deny Christensen’s February 1, 2010 Motion to Take Judicial Notice
of Video Evidence.
3
the sentencing factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), including the sentencing
range established by the Sentencing Guidelines”).
AFFIRMED.
4