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 a nd i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by 9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he H onor abl e R obe r tS . L a s ni k, U ni t e d S t a t e s C hi e f D i s tr i c tJ udge ** f orthe W e s t e rn D i s tr i c tof W a s hi ngt on, s i tt i ng by de s i gna t i on. 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. R O B E R T J E A N S T O L T Z , J r ., D e f

e n d a n t - A p p e lla n t. N o. 09- 30219 D . C . N o. 1: 07 -C R -001 25 -J D S -1 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 orthe D i s tr i c tof

M ont a na J a c k D . S ha ns tr om , D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng A r gue d a nd S ubm i tt e d F e brua ry 4, 2010

S e a tt l e , W a s hi ngt on B e f o r e : W. F L E T C HE R a n d R AWL I NS ON , C i r c u i tJ u d g e s , a n d L AS NI K, ** C hi ef D i stri ctJudg e. A pp el l antR ob ertS t ol t z, Jr . , (S t ol t z) chal l enges the se nt ence i m po se d fol l ow i ng hi s gui l ty pl eat o m aki ng fa l se st at em ent s t o a fe dera l l y i nsured fi nanci al in s titu tio n p u r s u a n t to 1 8 U .S .C . § 1 0 1 4 . 

# FI LED FEB 12 2 010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS2

1. A n y te c h n ic a l e rr o rc o m m itte d b y th e d is tr ic t c o u r t in n o t s tr ic tly c o m p ly in g w ith R u le 3 2 ( e ) ( 2 ) a n d ( g ) w a s h a r m le s s . See U ni ted Stat es v. T

urner , 898 F . 2d 705, 713- 14 ( 9th C i r . 1990) (c on cl ud i ng thatany e rr or com m i tt ed un der 1 8 U .S .C . § 35 52 , w hi ch cont ai ns a provi si on near l y i dent i ca l t o R ul e 32(e)( 2), w as ha r m l e s s i n the abs e nc e of a ny pr e j udi c e ) . S t ol t z di d nots uf f e ra ny pr e

j udi c e by recei v i n g th e R ev i sed P resen t en ce R ep o rt(P S R ) an d A d d en d u m o n l y fi v e d ays be f or e the i ni t i a l s e nt e nc i ng he a r i ng. T he di s tr i c tc our tc ont i nue d the s e nt e nc i ng hear i ng for one w ee k t o al l ow S t ol t z t o revi ew the am ended report . S t ol t z has ne ve ri ndi c a t e d, e i the rbe f or e the di s tr i c tc ourtori n hi s br i e f i ng on appe a l , how a d d itio n a l tim e w o u ld h a v e r e s u lte d in a d if f e r e n t s e n te n c e . 2 . U nd erei ther a de nov o or pl ai n err or st andard of revi ew , the di stri ctcourt di d n oterr i n fai l i ng t o res ol ve som e of S t ol t z’ s P S R obj ec t i on s. A tthe i ni t i al se nt enci ng hear i ng , the di stri ctcourtre j ec t ed S t ol t z’ s a rgum entthatthe si x-l evel e nha nc e m e nts e tf

or th unde rU . S . S . G . § 2B 1. 1( b) ( 1) ( D ) s houl d notappl y . T he di stri ctcourtal so re sol ved a fac tual di sput e i n S t ol t z’ s f avor atthe cont i nu ed s e nt e nc i ng he a r i ng a nd a w a r de d a tw o- poi ntde c r e a s e f ora c c e pt a nc e of r e s p o n s ib ility . T h e o n ly f a c tu a l d is p u te s th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t d id n o t e x p r e s s ly r e s ol ve pe r t a i ne d t o i nf

or m a t i on c ont a i ne d i n the “ A bi l i ty T o P a y ” s e c t i on of the3

r e vi s e d P S R . B e c a us e the s e f a c tua l di s put e s di d not“ a f f e c tthe t e m por a l t e r m of the se nt ence the di stri ctcourti m po se [d] , ” U n i ted S ta tes v. Sa et eu rn , 504 F . 3d 1175, 1181 ( 9th C i r . 2007) , there w as no error i n fai l i ng t o res ol ve them . 3 . B e c a u s e S to ltz d id n o t o b je c t to th e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s a lle g e d f a ilu r e to adequat el y e xp l ai n the re as on s f or hi s s ent ence , w e “ appl y pl ai n err or re vi ew . ” U ni te d Stat e s v . H

am m ons , 55 8 F . 3d 11 00 , 11 03 (9th C i r. 20 09 ) ( ci t at i on om i tt ed). T he re cord ref

l ec t s thatthe di stri ctcourt ’ s e xp l anat i on of S t ol t z’ s s ent ence w as

“ suff i ci ent [] t o p erm i tm ea ni ng ful appel l at e r evi ew . ” U n ite d S ta te s v . C a r ty , 520 F . 3d 98 4, 99 2 (9th C i r. 20 08 ) ( en banc). S peci fi ca l l y, the di stri ctcourt“ consi dere d the evi dence and argum ent s [ proffe re d b y S t ol t z] and b as ed i t s s ent ence on an a n a ly s is o f

th e a d v is o ry G u id e lin e s r a n g e a n d th e p r o v is io n s o f 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 5 3 ( a ) .” U

ni t e d Stat e s v . Stot e r au , 524 F . 3d 988, 1000 ( 9th C i r . 2008) ( c i t a t i on om i tt ed). A cc ordi ng l y, S t ol t z has fa i l ed t o est abl i sh thathi s s ub st ant i al ri gh t s w er e a f f e c t e d.

4 . T he di s tr i c tc our tdi d notabus e i t s di s c r e t i on i n de ny i ng S t ol t z ’ s m ot i on for app oi nt m entof a psy chol og i stpu rs uantt o 1 8 U . S . C . § 3 00 6A (e )( 1). A di stri ct courtcom m i t s a n abu se of di sc re t i on i n d enyi ng a r equestfor a n exp ertun der §4

30 06 A (e )( 1) on l y w here “ (1) r ea sonabl y c om pet entcoun se l w ou l d h ave r equi re d the as si st ance of the re qu es t ed expertfor apayi ng cl i ent , and (2) the defendantw as prej ud i ce d b y the l ac k o f e xp ertas si st ance . ” U n i ted S ta tes v. R o dri

g u ez-L a ra , 421 F .3 d 9 3 2 , 9 4 0 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) ( c ita tio n a n d in te rn a l q u o ta tio n m a r k s o m itte d ) .

“ T he pr e j udi c e c a nnotbe m e r e l y s pe c ul a t i ve ; i tm us tbe de m ons tr a t e d by c l e a ra nd conv i nci ng evi dence. ” U n i t ed S ta tes v. Ch a se , 49 9 F . 3d 10 61 , 10 68 (9th C i r. 2 0 0 7 ) ( c ita tio n o m itte d ) . S to ltz h a s f a ile d to m e e t th is s ta n d a r d . AF F I RME D.