Case ID: f-appx_305/html/0437-01.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. Kenneth KETNER, Defendant—Appellant.
    No. 07-50328.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Dec. 17, 2008 .
    Filed Dec. 29, 2008.
    
      Michael J. Raphael, Esq., Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, Andrew Stolper, Ann Luotto Wolf, Esq., Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Santa Ana, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    William J. Kopeny, William J. Kopeny & Associates, Irvine, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: GOODWIN, TROTT and RYMER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Kenneth Ketner appeals from the 57-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343, and money laundering, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1957. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Ketner contends that the district court erred by refusing to consider his substantial assistance and cooperation as relevant to its analysis of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. We conclude that the district

court understood its discretion and properly considered all mitigating arguments. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 995 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc).

Ketner also contends that the district court erred by relying on unreliable statements when imposing the sentence. We conclude that the district court did not improperly consider statements lacking “minimal indicia of reliability.” See United States v. Littlesun, 444 F.3d 1196, 1199-1200 (9th Cir.2006).

Because we conclude that the sentence is substantively reasonable, we affirm. See Gall v. United States, — U.S. -, 128 S.Ct. 586, 596-97, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007).

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