Case ID: f-appx_401/html/0285-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Thomas Edwin COCHEE, AKA Brandon M. Courtney, AKA Kevin Ross, AKA Kenneth Anderson, AKA Jonathan Houston, AKA Nicholas Letterman, AKA Rodney Hudson, Defendant-Appellant.
    Nos. 09-50465, 09-50601.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted Oct. 19, 2010.
    
    Filed Oct. 28, 2010.
    Harvinder S. Anand, Michael J. Raphael, Esquire, Assistant U.S. Attorneys, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Davina T. Chen, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Hayne Yoon, Esquire, FPDCA — Federal Public Defender’s Office, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: O’SCANNLAIN, TALLMAN, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

In these consolidated appeals, Thomas Edwin Cochee appeals from the concurrent 24-month sentences imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for bank fraud, aiding and abetting, and causing an act to be done, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1344, 2(a) and (b); and aggravated identity theft, aiding and abetting, and causing an act to be done, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1029(a)(2), 2(a) and (b). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Cochee contends that the district court erred by denying him a minor role adjustment under the Sentencing Guidelines and by considering improper factors when assessing his relative culpability in the offense. The record reflects that the district court, based on the facts before it, properly considered whether Cochee was substantially less culpable than his co-participants, and that it did not clearly err by determining that Cochee was not eligible for the adjustment. See United States v. Cantrell, 433 F.3d 1269, 1282-84 (9th Cir. 2006).

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