Case ID: f-appx_368/html/0825-01.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. LAM HOANG LAI, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 09-50117.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 16, 2010.
    
    Filed March 3, 2010.
    Christine Bautista, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Santa Ana, CA, Michael J. Raphael, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Robert Hartmann, The Hartmann Law Firm, Newport Beach, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Lam Hoang Lai appeals from his below-the-Guidelines 87-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for possession of child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(5)(B). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Lai contends that the district court procedurally erred when it failed to consider the disparity between the recommended Guidelines sentence and the maximum sentence he could have received if convicted of the same conduct in a California state court. This argument is foreclosed by United States v. Ringgold, 571 F.3d 948, 951 (9th Cir.2009) (holding that “the district court does not commit procedural error in its [section] 3553(a) analysis if it does not consider disparities between state and federal sentences for the same criminal conduct”).

Lai also contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable. The record reflects that, under the totality of the circumstances, Lai’s 87-month sentence is not substantively unreasonable. United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 991-93 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc); see also Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 127 S.Ct. 2456, 168 L.Ed.2d 203 (2007).

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