N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
UNITED STATES OF AM ER IC A,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lle e , v. TYR ONE C EDR IC DUREN,

De fe nda n t-Appe l la

nt. No. 20-50215

D.C . No. 3:16-c r-02892-JAH-1
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Southe rn Distric t of C a lifornia J ohn A. Houston, Distric

t Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d Fe brua

ry 9, 2022 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : SC HR OEDER , TALLM AN, a n d LEE, C irc uit Judge s . Ty rone Dure n a

ppe a ls the 130-m o nth se nte nc e im pose d following his guilty ple a to te n c ounts of tra

nsa c tiona l m one y

la unde ring in viola

tion of 18 U.S.C . § 1957(a), e i ght c ounts of fa lse sta te m e nts to fe de ra l a g e nts in viola tion of 18 U.S.C . § 1001(a)(2), and one c ount of ta x e v a sion in viola

tion of 

# FIL ED

FEB 18 2022 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.26 U.S.C . § 7201. Dure n’ s c rim e s we re c om m itte d while he wa s a

Spe c ia l Age nt for Imm igration a

nd C u s tom s Enforc e m e nt a nd a ssigne d to thebulk c a sh
sm uggling ta sk forc e . Dure n stolefunds tha t ha d be e n c onfisc ate d a s ille ga l proc e e ds of drug tra ffic king a nd the n e nga ge d in va

rious c ove r-up a c tivitie s. He first c ha l le nge s the two-le ve l e nha nc e m e nt pursua

nt to U.S.S.G. § 3B 1.1(c ) that

wa s im pose d for his supe rvisory role in his wife ’ s pa rtic i pation in the

c onspira c y . He obje c ts to thedistric t c ourt’ s c onside ra tion of he r guilty ple a to filing a

fra udule nt loa

n a pplic ation, be c a

use he c onte nds it wa s not suffic ie ntly

re late d to a

ny of the c rim ina l c onduc t with whic h he wa s c h arge d in this proc e e ding. There c ord, howe v e r, c onta ins a m ple e vide nc e tha

t the two worke d toge the r to hide the proc e e ds tha t e na ble d both to live

be y ond the ir le gitim ate m e ans. B oth kne w the sourc e s a nd e xte nt of the ir le gitim ate fina n c ia l
re sourc e s, a s she did the a c c ounting work for the ir prope rty m ana g e m e nt busine ss. Se e Unite d State

s v . Sy rax , 235 F.3d 422, 427-28 (9th C i r. 2000)

. Appe lla nt a lso
a c knowle dge s tha

t his wifem a de at le a st one de posit of stolen funds in furthe ranc e of the m one y

la unde ring sc he m e . And a fte r a uthoritie s se arc h e d

the i r house , a

nd the y we re on notic e that la

w e nforc e m e nt suspe c te d c rim i na l a c tivity , Dure n trave le d to C roatia

an d ope n e d a

n a c c ount for deposit of stolen funds. His wife late r a c c om

pa nie d him to C roatia

an d a dde d he r na

m e to the a c c ount. The s e
2findings a

re not c l e arly

e rrone ous a

nd the two-le ve l e nha

nc e m e nt wa s not a

n a buse of disc re tion. S

e e Unite d State

s v . Armste ad , 552 F.3d 769, 776 (9th C ir. 2008)

. The distric t c ourt did not err in a pply i ng a six-le ve l inc re a se for la

unde ring funds de rive d from

drug tra ffic king . Se e U.S.S.G. § 2S1.1(b)(1). Dure n ple d guilty to viola ting 18 U.S.C . § 1957, a

nd a dm itte d tha

t the la unde re d m one y

wa s proc e e ds de rive d from

the unla wful a c tivity

of drug tra ffic k ing. His the o ry , tha t he should bese nte nc e d a s if he ha d m e re ly stole n gove rnm e nt prope rty rat he r tha n proc e e ds of drug tra ffic king, is c ontra ry to the fa c ts a

nd ha s no support in the

la w. The distric t c ourt he ld four da y s of e vide ntia

ry he arings a

nd, a s our la

w
re quire s, c onsc ie ntiously

c onside re d a ll re l e va

nt e vide nc e re late d to Dure n’ s possible sourc e s of inc o m e in orde r to c a lc ulat e the fina nc ia l loss. Se e Unite d State s v . J e nk ins , 633 F.3d 778, 808-09 (9th C i r. 2011). Dure n ha s not de m onstra

te d the re wa s any

e rror in tha

t c a l c ulation or in the

c onduc t of the he arings. The distric t c ourt im

pose d a se nte n c e tha

t e xc e e de d the Guide line range by nine m onths. The re wa s no e rror. The range is a dvisory , not m andatory . Se e Unite d State s v . Book e r , 543 U.S. 220, 245 (2005). The distric t c ourt e xpla ine d its
ana ly sis of the18 U.S.C . § 3553(a) fa c tors, a nd with re a sons tha

t a re re a d ily unde rsta nda b le to this c ourt. AFFIRM E D. 3