T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l a r g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T UN I T E D S T AT E S OF AME R I C A, P l ai nt i ff

- A pp el l ee , v. T A R A K E S W A R C H A U D H A R Y , a. k. a. T arakC h au d h ary, D e f

e n d a n t - A p p e lla n t. N o. 10- 50425 D. C . No . 8 : 1 0 - c r - 0 0 0 0 1 - J VS ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e C e n tr a l D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia J a m e s V . S e l na , D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d S e pt e m be r27, 2011 ** B efo re: S IL V E R M A N , W . F L E T C H E R , an dM U R G U IA , C i rcu i tJu d g es. T ar akes w arC haud haryappeal s f rom the 70 -m on th sent ence i m po se d f o l l o w i n g h i s g u i l ty - p l e ac o n v i c t i o n f o rw i r e f r au d , i n v i o l a t i o n o f

1 8 U . S. C. § 1 3 4 3 . W e h a v e ju r is d ic tio n u n d e r2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 , a n dw e a f f irm . 

# FI LED OC T 05 2011 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS10- 50425 2 C haud haryfi rs tcont ends thatthe di stri ctcourterre d i n i m po si ng an o b s tru c tio n o f

ju s tic e e n h a n c e m e n t u n d e rU .S .S .G . § 3 C 1 .1 . T h e r e c o r ds u p p o rts the c ourt ’ s c onc l us i on tha tC haudha ry ’ s m ove m e ntof hi s c om put e r s a nd i nc r i m i na t i ng doc um e nt s w a s purpos e f ul l yc a l c ul a t e d, a nd l i ke l y , t o thw a rtthe in v e s tig a tio n o f

h is c r im e . T h e r e f

o r e , th e c o u rt d idn o t ab u s e its d is c r e tio n in im p o s in g th e e n h a n c e m e n t. See U .S .S .G . § 3 C 1 .1 c m t. n .1 ; U ni ted States v. McN a lly , 15 9 F . 3d 12 15 , 12 17 (9th C i r. 19 98 ) ( appl i ca t i on of ob struct i on of j ust i ce enhancem enti s r evi ew ed for abu se of di sc re t i on ). C h au d h ary n ex tco n t en d s th atth e d i stri ctco u rterred i n d en yi n g h i s req u est f orac ont i nua nc e t o f

i l e s uppl e m e nt a l br i e f

i ng on the i s s ue of

the obs truc t i on of j ust i ce enhancem ent . G i ven the t i m i ng of C haud hary ’ s r equest , as w el l as the fa ct th a t h e h a dp r e v io u s lyb r ie f e d th e q u e s tio n a t is s u e , th e c o u rt d idn o t ab u s e its d is c r e tio n . See G C

B C om m un i cat i on s, Inc. v. U . S. So uth C om m un i cat i on s, Inc. , N o s. 0 9 -1 7 6 4 6 , 1 0 -1 6 0 8 6 , 2 0 1 1 W L 1 6 1 3 1 5 2 , at* 3 (9 th C i r. A p r. 2 9 , 2 0 1 1 ) (case m anagem entdeci si on s of di stri ctcourtar e r evi ew ed for abu se of di sc re t i on ); U ni ted States v. R i chter , 48 8 F . 2d 17 0, 17 3-74 (9th C i r. 19 73 ). C haud haryal so cont ends thathi s s ent ence i s s ub st ant i vel y unrea sonabl e. In l i ghtof the t ot a l i tyof

the c i r c um s t a nc e s a nd the 18 U . S . C . § 3553( a ) s e nt e nc i ng10- 50425 3 f a c to r s , C h au d h a ry ’s b e lo w - G u id e lin e s s e n te n c e is s u b s ta n tiv e lyr e a s o n ab le . See G al l v. U ni ted States , 5 5 2 U .S . 3 8 , 5 1 ( 2 0 0 7 ) . C h au d h ary las tl y c o n ten d s th at h e w as d en ied d u e p ro ce ss b y th e c o u rt’s im p lic it r e f

e r e n c e to h is e th n ic b a c k g r o u n da t s e n te n c in g . T h e r e c o r db e lie s th is c ont e nt i on. T he c ourt ’ s e xpr e s s e d c onc e rn w a s w i th the abus e of trus tr e s ul t i ng f r om pe rpe tr a t or s of

f r aud t a r ge t i ng m e m be r s of the i row n s oc i a l gr oup; i tdi d not im p o s e s e n te n c e o n th e b a s is o f C h au d h a ry ’s e th n ic ity . AF F I RME D.