Case ID: f-appx_414/html/0972-01.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. BAO LU, a.k.a Hoang Nguyen, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 09-10276.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 15, 2011.
    
    Filed Feb. 17, 2011.
    Jason Hitt, William S. Wong, USSAC— Office of the U.S. Attorney, Sacramento, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    William Lathan Osterhoudt, Law Office of William Osterhoudt, San Francisco, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    
      Before: CANBY, FERNANDEZ, 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

Bao Lu appeals from the district court’s decision following a limited remand under United States v. Ameline, 409 F.3d 1073 (9th Cir.2005) (en banc). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Lu contends that his life-time term of imprisonment is unreasonable because the district court failed to take into account his youth and post-sentencing rehabilitation. The district court conducted a proper Ameline review, see United States v. Silva, 472 F.3d 683, 685 (9th Cir.2007), and it “properly understood the full scope of [its] discretion” following United, States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005). See United States v. Combs, 470 F.3d 1294, 1297 (9th Cir.2006). Moreover, the district court was not required to consider Lu’s post-sentencing rehabilitation. See United States v. Bernardo Sanchez, 569 F.3d 995, 997-98 (9th Cir.2009).

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