Case ID: f-appx_472/html/0678-01.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. John ASEPH, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 10-10458.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted April 17, 2012.
    
    Filed April 19, 2012.
    Michael Chu, Robert Lawrence Ellman, Esquire, Peter Stuart Levitt, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Las Vegas, NV, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Brenda Weksler, Esquire, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Las Vegas, NV, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: LEAVY, PAEZ, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

John Aseph appeals from the 51-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for six counts of wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Aseph contends that the district court abused its discretion by basing his sentence on an unreliable amount of loss not substantiated by either probation or the parties. The district court correctly calculated the advisory guidelines range based on the stipulated amount of loss. Contrary to Aseph’s contention, the district court did not select a sentence at the high end of the guidelines range based on its belief that the loss was greater than the stipulated amount. Rather, the court properly considered the totality of the circumstances and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors in arriving at a substantively reasonable, within-Guidelines sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 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.