1

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

 v. 

HERSCHELL LYON BECKER, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

No. 16-30254

D.C. No. 3:15-cr-00021-SLG-1

MEMORANDUM*

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

 v. 

JOHN ASHFORD BECKER, AKA Jack 

Becker, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

No. 16-30256

D.C. No. 3:15-cr-00021-SLG-2

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Alaska, 

Judge Sharon L. Gleason, Presiding

Argued and Submitted June 13, 2018

Anchorage, Alaska

Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge and CALLAHAN and BEA, Circuit Judges.

 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

FILED

JUL 30 2018

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2

Herschell and John Becker were charged with bribery in violation of 18 

U.S.C. § 201(b)(1) when they attempted to bribe an Air Force officer to accept 

deficient work that the Beckers’ company had performed at Joint Base Elmendorf 

Richardson near Anchorage, Alaska. Herschell Becker pleaded guilty to three 

counts of bribery in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 201(b)(1) and was sentenced to 48 

months imprisonment. Following a jury trial, John Becker was convicted of two 

counts of bribery in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 201(b)(1) and was sentenced to 24 

months imprisonment. 

The Beckers jointly appeal their sentences.1 We apply a three-pronged 

standard of review to sentencing decisions under the Sentencing Guidelines. United 

States v. Gasca-Ruiz, 852 F.3d 1167, 1170 (9th Cir. 2017). We review the district 

court’s identification and interpretation of the applicable Guidelines provisions de 

novo, the district court’s factual findings for clear error, and the district court’s 

application of the Guidelines to the facts it has found for an abuse of discretion. Id. 

1. The district court did not err in calculating the amount of loss the Beckers 

intended to inflict for purposes of sentencing. The district court determined that the 

government did not suffer an actual loss as a result of the Beckers’ conduct, but 

correctly proceeded to determine if the Beckers had intended to inflict a loss on the 

 

1 Neither Appellant contests his guilt on appeal. 
3

government. See U.S.S.G. § 2C1.1(b)(2); Application Note 3 to U.S.S.G. § 2C1.1; 

Application Note 3(A) to U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1. Next, the district court reasonably 

concluded that the Beckers subjectively intended to cause the government to accept 

their deficient work and, thus, subjectively intended to cause a “loss” equal to the 

cost to bring the Beckers’ deficient work into compliance with the Air Force’s 

standards. The district court rejected the Beckers’ estimates of the cost to fix their 

work and accepted the testimony proffered by the government: that it would cost 

$850,000 to remedy the deficiencies with the Beckers’ work. Contrary to the 

Beckers’ arguments, the district court’s order reflects that it carefully considered the 

evidence submitted by the Beckers and took their subjective knowledge and intent 

into account. As a result, we find no error in the district court’s determination that 

the Beckers intended to inflict a loss of $850,000. 

2. The district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Herschell Becker 

to 48 months, a downward departure from the Guidelines range of 57 to 71 months. 

The district court reasonably weighed the relevant mitigating and aggravating factors 

in arriving at its sentencing decision. 

3. The district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing John Becker to 

24 months, a downward departure from the Guidelines range of 51 to 63 months. 

The district court reasonably weighed the relevant mitigating and aggravating factors 

in arriving at its sentencing decision. 
4

AFFIRMED.