NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v. SALVADOR GALVAN, a.k.a. Salvador Galvan, Jr.,
Defendant

- Appellant. No. 17

- 50405
D.C. No. 2:17

- cr - 00283

- JLS

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Josephine L. Staton, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 27, 2018 **
Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Salvador Gal van appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges
the 78

- month sentence imposed following his guilty

- plea conviction for theft from an organization receiving federal funds, in viol ation of 18 U.S.C. § 666 (a) (1)(A),
based on his embezzl ement of over $3. 7 million dollars while serving as the

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

DEC 3 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 17

- 50405

Deputy T reasurer for the City of Co mpton. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
G alvan first argues that h is trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance at sentencing. We decline to address Galvan’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel on direct appeal because the record is insufficiently developed and it is not
obvious that Galvan was denied his Sixth Amendme nt right to counsel. See United
States v. Rahman , 642 F.3d 1257, 1259

- 60 (9th Cir. 201 1 )

. This claim is better suited for review in a proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. See id. at 1260. Galvan next argues that the distr ict court pro cedu rally erred by relying on the clearly erroneous finding that the residents of Co mpton were victims of his misconduct when imposing a n upward variance of 21 month s
. Contrary to
Galvan’s contention, the district court did not find that all Compton residents were
victim s for purposes of an enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(2). Instead, the district court accepted the uncontested Guidelines calculation set forth in the Presentence Investigation Report and then properly considered the broader impact
of Galvan’s conduc t on the residents of Compton when assessing the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors as a whole. See United States v. Christensen , 732 F.3d 1094, 1100

- 01 (9th Cir. 2013) ( sentencing court may conclude that the Guidelines do not sufficiently account for the harm caused by the defendant’s
conduct ). Nor did the district court engage in “impermissible double counting”3 17

- 50405

under the Guidelines when it considered the impact of Galvan’s misconduct on the residents of Compton, the length of Galvan’s embezzlement s cheme, or the extent of Galvan’s abuse of trust in connection with its analysis of the section 3553(a) sentencing factors. See id. Galvan also argues that the sentence is substantively unreasonabl e
. The
district court did not abuse its discretion. See Gall v. United States , 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The 78

- month sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the
section 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, including
the public i mpact of Galvan’s misconduct , his repeated ab use of the public ’s trust, and his almost daily embezzle ment of c ity money over the course of six years

. See
id.
We decline to consider Galvan’ s argument in reply regarding the effect of his wife’s sentencing hearing on his ineffective assistance of c ounsel claim

. See United States v. Mejia

- Pimental , 477 F.3d 1100, 1105 n.9 (9th Cir. 2007).
AFFIRMED.