Case ID: f-appx_440/html/0554-01.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. Michael Edward McCREADY, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 10-50176.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 15, 2011.
    
    Filed June 27, 2011.
    Michael J. Raphael, Esquire, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Michael R. Wilner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Ap-pellee.
    Wayne Richard Young, Law Office of Wayne R. Young, Santa Monica, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: CANBY, O’SCANNLAIN, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Michael Edward McCready appeals from the 108-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for securities fraud, in violation of 15 U.S.C. §§ 78j(b) and 78ff. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

McCready contends that the district court erred at sentencing by failing to consider the facts of McCready’s case and miscalculating the Guidelines range when it failed to depart downward under U.S.S.G. § 5K2.16 for voluntary disclosure. The record reflects that the district court did not procedurally err, and in light of the totality of the circumstances, the within-Guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 991-93 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc); United States v. Mohamed, 459 F.3d 979, 986 (9th Cir.2006) (stating that the departure scheme has “essentially” been replaced by the requirement that judges impose a ‘reasonable’ sentence).

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