Case ID: f-appx_392/html/0602-01.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. Jason Paul CHRISTENSEN, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 09-30372.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted July 7, 2010.
    
    Filed Aug. 24, 2010.
    Katherine Jill Bolton, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Spokane, WA, for Plaintiff-Ap-pellee.
    Rebecca Louise Pennell, Esquire, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Defenders of Eastern Washington & Idaho, Yakima, WA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: HUG, SKOPIL and BEEZER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Defendant-appellant Jason Paul Christensen (“Christensen”) appeals from a final judgment convicting him of eight counts of mail fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1341, and eight counts of money laundering, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(1)(A)®. 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).

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. 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 the sentencing factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), including the sentencing range established by the Sentencing Guidelines”).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
     
      
      . We deny Christensen’s February 1, 2010 Motion to Take Judicial Notice of Video Evidence.