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 ERIC A, Plaintiff - Appe lle e , v. PAUL W O M M ER , De fe nda

nt - Appe lla

nt. No. 15-10039

D.C . No. 2:10-c r-00596-GMNGW F-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 Ne v a da Gloria M . Nava rro, C hie f Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d

Nove m b e r 20, 2015 ** San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : KLEINFELD, W ARD L AW , a

nd PAEZ, C irc uit Judge s. Pa ul W om m e r wa s c o nvic te d of thre e c ounts of struc turing fina nc ia l transa c tions, onec ount of ta x e va sion, a

nd one c o unt of m a

k ing a fa lse re turn or sta te m e nt. W om

m e r suc c e ssfully

a ppe a le d his se nte nc e of 41 m onths’ 

# FIL ED DEC 17 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, 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 pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).im

prisonm e nt, a

nd wa s subse que ntly

re se nte nc e d to 33 months’ im prisonm e nt. W om m e r c ha lle n ge s his re se nte nc i ng a s vindic tive . W e a ffirm . 1. W om

m e r argue s tha

t the distric t

judge e nga ge d

in vindic tive re s e nte nc ing a fte r W om

m e r’ s suc c e s sful a

ppe a l to this c ourt. Se eUnite d State s v . W o m me r , 584 F. App’ x 815 (9th C ir. 2014). W om m e r’ s initial se nte nc e of 41 m onths’ im prisonm e nt wa s at the low e nd of theguide line s ra nge . At re se nte nc ing, the distric t judgefound tha

t W om m e r qua lifie d for a

lowe r tota l offe nse le ve l tha n at the i nitia l se nte nc i ng, a

nd she im pose d a se nte nc e of 33 m onths’ im prisonm e nt. This se nte nc e wa s at the high e nd of theguide line s ra nge . B e c a

use W om m e r’ s ove ra l l se nte nc e wa s not inc re a se d, no pre sum ption of vindictive ne s s a

rise s . Unite d State s v . Horob , 735 F.3d 866, 871 (9th C ir. 2013). Nor did Wom m e r prove a c tua l vindic tive ne s s on the pa

rt of thedistric t judge , who re a sona bly c ould ha ve c onc lude d tha

t a 33-m onth se nte nc e wa s a ppropria te give n the unde rly ing c o nduc t and se nte nc ing fa c tors. Se e id. at 871-72. 2. W om

m e r a lso a

rgue s tha t the distric t c ourt wa s vindic tive in de ny ing his m otion for une sc orte d

c o m m itm e nt to B ure a

u of Prisons c ustody . The distric t judge provide d

an e xpla nation for de ny ing them otion tha t wa s unre l ate d to W om m e r’ s e xe rc ise of his right to a ppe a l . Se eFe nne r

v . U.S. Parole

C omm’n , 251 F.3d 782, 789 (9th C ir. 2001) (finding no vindic tive n e ss whe re the Parole 2C om

m ission “ provide d wholly

logic a l, nonvindic tive re a s ons for issuing the pa role viola tion wa rrant” a fte r the de fe nda

nt file d a ha be a s pe tition) (interna l quota tion m arks om itte d). Thus, there wa s nothing vindictive in thedistric t judge ’ s de nia l of W om m e r’ s m otion for une sc orte d c om m itm e nt to B ure a

u of Prisons c ustody . AFFIRM E D.

3