Case ID: f-appx_42/html/0921-01.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. William BENDER, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 01-10097.
    D.C. No. CR-99-00388-MMC.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted July 22, 2002.
    
    Decided July 31, 2002.
    Before BROWNING, KOZINSKI, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2). Accordingly, appellant’s request for addition time in order to file a request for oral argument is denied.
    
   MEMORANDUM

William Bender appeals his four-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for using a false writing and document, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 18 U.S.C. § 3742, and we affirm.

Bender contends the district court erred by imposing a two-level enhancement pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2F1.1(b)(2)(A) (2000) for more than minimal planning. We review for clear error, United States v. Lindholm, 24 F.3d 1078, 1086 (9th Cir.1994), and conclude that this contention lacks merit.

If the offense involved more than minimal planning, then the defendant’s offense level is increased by two levels. § 2F1.1(b)(2)(A) (2000). Our review of the record also supports a finding of conduct demonstrating more planning than is typical for the commission of the offense. See § 1B.1 n. 1(f) (2000).

Accordingly, the district court did not clearly err. See Lindholm, 24 F.3d at 1086-87.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.