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, Plaintiff - Appe lle e , v. JOSEPH ANTHONY LAC OSTE, De fe nda

nt - Appe lla

nt. No. 15-30001

D.C . No. 6:11-c r-60048-AA-1
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ore gon Ann L. Aike n, C hie f Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d M arc h

11, 2016 Portla nd, Ore gon B e fore : B ER

Z ON a nd WATFORD, C irc uit Judge s , a nd WALTER , * * Se n ior Distric t Judge
. 1. The gove rnm e nt did not bre a c h its ple a a gre e m e nt with de fe nda nt Joseph La C oste . Se e Unite d State s v . He re dia , 768 F.3d 1220, 1231–34 (9th C i r. 2014). The gove rnm e n t a dvoc ate d for the a gre e d-upon 36-m onth se n te nc e both in its 

# F IL ED MAY12 2016 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 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The Honora

ble Dona ld E. W a lte r, Se nior Distric t Judge for the U.S. Distric t C ourt for the W e ste rn Distric t of Louisia na , sitting by

de s igna tion.Pa ge 2 of 3

se nte nc ing m e m orandum

and at the se nte nc ing he aring. The prose c utor a rtic ulate d
m ultiple , re le v ant re a sons why the c ourt should im

pose the a g re e d-upon se nte nc e , and he e xpre ssly

c ha l le nge d the ba se s for the Probation Offic e ’ s highe r re c o m m e ndation, a

rguing tha

t the gove rnm e nt c ould not prove fa c ts to support the Probation Offic e ’ s highe r loss figureand tha t La C oste ’ s offe nse c onduc t did not involvethe use of sophistic ate d m e ans. Eve n de fe nse c ounse l a c knowle dge d tha t , in light of the se re pre s e ntations, thegove rnm e nt “ satisfie [d] the a gre e m e nt [the pa rtie s ] e nte re d i nto.” R e ga rdle ss of whe the r La C oste wa ive d this c la im , it fa ils. 2. The distric t c ourt did not im prope rly re stric t the sta

te m e nts of La C oste ’ s c ha ra c te r witne sse s at the se nte nc ing he aring. The distric t c ourt did not pre c lude the d e fe nse witne s se s from offe ring wha

te ve r re le va

n t inform ation the y

wishe d to provide ; it m e re ly

a dm onishe d the m

not to m ake furthe r dispa ra g ing c o m

m e nts
a bout oneof the vic tim s of La C oste ’ s sc he m e who ha d just te stifie d to theim

pa c t of La C oste ’ s c rim e s on he r. Nor did the c ourt viola te Fe de ra l R

ule of C rim ina l Proc e d ure 32(i)(1)(B ) by

fa iling to disc lose to the de fe n se the m ate ria ls the c ourt re vie we d prior to se nte nc ing. Thele tte rs a b out whic h

La C oste now c om

p la ins
we re writte n by

his supporters, a

nd som e of the m

we re subm itte d

to the c o urt by La C oste ’ s own la

w y e r, a lbe i t a

ppa re ntly without his revie wing the m first. The
re c o rd c onta ins nothing to support La C oste ’ s c onte ntion tha

t, in a rriving a t thePa ge 3 of 3

se nte nc e it im

p ose d, the distric t c ourt re lie d on de trim e nta l inform ation tha t de fe nse c ounse l wa s de prive d of a n opportunity

to re vie w. 3. Suffic ie nt e vide nc e supports the im position of a

le a de rship role
e nha nc e m e nt unde r U.S.S.G. § 3B 1.1(c ). The Probation Offic e re porte d tha t La C oste m a de a ll m a

j or fina nc ia l de c isions a

t the inve stm e nt firm

and c ontrolle d both thefirm ’ s e xpe nditure s a nd its a c tivitie s re l ate d to his fra ud. The Probation Offic e a lso note d

tha t La C oste e xe rc ise d ope rationa l a uthority ove r various pa rtic i pa nts in c arry ing out his fra ud. The distric t c ourt wa s fre e to a c c e pt the se a sse rtions, whic h

suffic e to support the

le a de rship role e nha

n c e m e n t. C

f. Unite d State s v . W hitne y , 673 F.3d 965, 975–76 (9th C ir. 2012). And be c a use the
e vide nc e showe d “ that the de fe nda nt e xe rc i se d som e c ontrol ove r othe rs involve d in the c om

m ission of the

offe n se or wa s re s ponsiblefor orga niz ing othe rs for the purpose of c arry ing out the c rim e ,” the c ourt wa s not re quire d to m ake e xpre ss fa c t ua l findings in support of the e nha nc e m e nt. Id. at 975 (quoting Unite d State s v . Ingham , 486 F.3d 1068, 1074 (9th C ir. 2007)). The se a spe c ts of the distric t c ourt’ s de c ision a re AFFIRM E D.