Case ID: f-appx_255/html/0183-01.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. Owen R. FOX, aka Seal C(3), Defendant—Appellant.
    No. 06-50353.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Oct. 22, 2007.
    
    Filed Nov. 20, 2007.
    Becky S. Walker, Esq., Jeffrey B. Isaacs, Esq., Janet C. Hudson, Esq., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Criminal Division, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Adam Axelrad, Law Offices of Adam Axelrad, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: B. FLETCHER, WARDLAW, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Owen R. Fox appeals from the 121-month sentence imposed following this court’s order vacating and remanding for resentencing in light of United States v. Ameline, 409 F.3d 1073 (9th Cir.2005) (en banc). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Fox contends that his sentence is unreasonable because it results in an unwarranted sentencing disparity between Fox and one of his co-defendants under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(6). We conclude that Fox’s sentence is not unreasonable. See United States v. Plouffe, 445 F.3d 1126, 1131-32 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 547 U.S. 1158, 126 S.Ct. 2314, 164 L.Ed.2d 832 (2006).

Additionally, Fox contends that the district court incorrectly applied the preponderance of the evidence standard when imposing an upward adjustment to his offense level for the amount of loss to investors. We conclude that the district court applied the correct standard. See United States v. Riley, 335 F.3d 919, 927 (9th Cir.2003).

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