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. 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 . WAR R E N E R I C AR MS T E AD ,

D e f e n d a n t - A p p e lla n t. N o. 09- 30298 D . C . N o. 2: 04 -c r- 00 51 2-JL R -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 W e s t e rn D i s tr i c tof W a s hi ngt on J a m e s L . R oba rt , 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 M a r c h 7, 2011 S e a tt l e , W a s hi ngt on B efo re: M cK E O W N , F IS H E R an d G O U L D , C i rcu i tJu d g es. W arre n E ri c A rm st ea d app ea l s the w i thi n-G ui del i nes, 17 5-m on th sent ence i m pos e d f

ol l ow i ng hi s c onvi c t i on on one c ountof c ons pi r a c yt o c om m i tba nk f r aud a n d n i n e c o u n t s o f

s u b s t a n t i v e b a n kf

r au d . W e a f

f i rm. 1. T he di stri ctcourtprop er l y deni ed A rm st ea d’ s r equestfor atw o-l evel adj ustm entfor a cc ept ance of re spon si bi l i ty bec ause A rm st ea d st ea dfas t l y r ef used 

# FI LED MA R 15 2011 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS2

t o acc eptre spon si bi l i ty f or hi s l ea ders hi p rol e i n the conspi ra cy , even aft er c o n v ic tio n . See U

ni ted Stat es v. Scha les , 5 4 6 F .3 d 9 6 5 , 9 7 6 (9 th C ir. 2 0 0 8 ) ( “A d e f e n d a n t is e n title d to ad o w n w a r d a d ju s tm e n t if

h e c le a r lya c c e p ts r e s p o n s ib ility f o ra ll o f h is r e le v a n t c o n d u c t.” ) ; se e al so U ni ted Stat es v. McKi nn ey , 15 F . 3d 849, 8 5 3 ( 9 th C ir . 1 9 9 4 ) ( “W h e r e th e d e f e n d a n t’s s ta te m e n ts a n d c o n d u c t m ake i t c le ar th a t h is co n tri t i o n is si n cere , . . . h e is e n title d to th e r e d u c tio n e v e n if h e is conv i ct ed af

t era tri al . ” ( em ph as i s a dd ed)) . 2 . T h e d is tr ic t c o u rt d id n o t f a il to c o n s id e r1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 5 3 ( a ) ( 6 ) . F ir s t, a di stri ctcourt“ need no tt i ck off e ac h o f the § 3 55 3(a) fa ct ors t o sho w thati thas consi dere d them . ” U

n ite d S ta te s v . Ca r ty , 52 0 F . 3d 98 4, 99 2 (9th C i r. 20 08 ) ( en banc). S ec on d, the di stri ctcourtexpres sl y di sc usse d the i ss ue of un w arrant ed di s pa r i t i e s dur i ng the s e nt e nc i ng he a r i ng. 3. A rm s t e a d c om pl a i ns tha tthe di s tr i c tc ourtf a i l e d t o a de qua t e l ye xpl a i n the di s pa r i ty be tw e e n hi s s e nt e nc e a nd tha tof f ourof hi s c oc ons pi r a t or s w ho di d not c o o p e r a te w ith th e g o v e rn m e n t. A d is tr ic t c o u rt, h o w e v e r , n e e d o n lye x p la in its re as on s f or re j ec t i ng “ a s

p e c ific , nonf

r i vol ous a r gum e ntt e the r e d t o ar e l e va nt § 3 55 3(a) fa ct or. ” Ca r ty , 52 0 F . 3d at99 2-93 (e m ph as i s a dd ed). In the di stri ct c ourt , A rm s t e a d r a i s e d onl y age ne r a l a r gum e nttha thi s s e nt e nc e s houl d be p r o p o rtio n a te to h is e ig h t c o c o n s p ir a to r s . O n lyo n ap p e a l d o e s h e s p e c if ic a lly3

a r gue tha thi s s e nt e nc e i s di s pr oport i ona t e t o the f ournon- c oope r a t i ng coconspi ra t ors i n p art i cul ar . T he di stri ctcourt ’ s e xp l anat i on w as adequat e und er th e ci rcu m st an ces. 4 . T h e d is p a r ityb e tw e e n A rm s te a d ’s s e n te n c e a n d th o s e o f h is c o c o n s p ir a to r s d o e s n o t r e n d e rh is s e n te n c e s u b s ta n tiv e lyu n r e a s o n ab le . See 18 U . S . C . § 3 55 3(a) (6). A l tho ug h the no n-coop er at i ng coconspi ra t ors r ec ei ved l ow er s e nt e nc e s tha n A rm s t e a d, the y a r e nots i m i l a r l ys i tua t e d f orpurpos e s of § 3 5 5 3 ( a ) ( 6 ) . See U

ni ted Stat es v. Carter , 56 0 F . 3d 11 07 , 11 21 & n. 3 (9th C i r. 20 09 ) ( re j ec t i ng the defendant ’ s c on t ent i on of un w arrant ed se nt enci ng di spar i t i es w h e r e th e c o d e f

e n d a n ts w e r e e ith e rc o n v ic te d o f f e w e ro f f e n s e s o rc o o p e r a te d w ith the go vernm ent ). 5. A rm s t e a d’ s e xc e rpt s of r e c or d c ont a i n gove rnm e nts e nt e nc i ng m e m or a ndaa nd c r i m i na l j udgm e nt s f r om 20 othe rc r i m i na l c a s e s i nvol vi ng d e f e n d a n ts s e n te n c e d f

o rb a n kf r au d . A rm s te a d c o n te n d s th a t th e s e d o c u m e n ts s how tha thi s s e nt e nc e i s s ubs t a nt i ve l yunr e a s onabl e by c om pa r i s on. T he go vernm enthas m ov ed t o stri ke A rm st ea d’ s e vi dence because i tw as no tpres ent ed to th e d is tr ic t c o u rt. W e g r a n t th e m o tio n . Se e U ni te d State s v . E l i as , 921 F . 2d 87 0, 87 4 (9th C i r. 19 90 ) ( “ D ocum ent s or f ac t s notpres ent ed t o the di stri ctcourt a r e n o t p a rt o f

th e r e c o r do n ap p e a l.” ) . A rm s te a d ’s c o n te n tio n th a t th e e v id e n c e is4

p r o p e r lyin c lu d e d in th e ap p e lla te r e c o r d b e c au s e it c o n s is ts o f d o c u m e n ts f

ile d in o th er d is tr ic t c o u rt c a s e s is w ith o u t m e r it. Se e Ki rs h n e rv . Un i de n C o r p . o f A m. , 8 4 2 F .2 d 1 0 7 4 , 1 0 7 7 - 7 8 ( 9 th C ir . 1 9 8 8 ) ( e x p la in in g th a t th e r e c o r d o n ap p e a l is lim ite d to m a te r ia ls p la c e d b e f o r e th e d is tr ic t c o u rt) . T h e g o v e rn m e n t’s m o tio n is G R A N TED . W e th e r e f o r e d o n o t r e a c h th e m e r its o f A rm s te a d ’s a r g u m e n t. 6. T ha tthe a dvi s ory s e nt e nc e s f orba nk f r aud ha ve i nc r e a s e d i n the pa s t24 y e a r s d o e s n o t e s tab lis h th a t th e c u rr e n t a d v is o rys e n te n c e s a r e u n r e a s o n ab le . F urtherm ore, al tho ug h A rm st ea d’ s a dj ust ed offens e l evel re fl ec t s a14 -l evel i nc r e a s e f

oral os s a m ountove r$400, 000, a2- l e ve l i nc r e a s e f orm or e tha n 10 vi c t i m s , a2- l e ve l i nc r e a s e f orpos s e s s i on of

m or e tha n f

i ve m e a ns of

i de nt i f i c a t i on and a 4-l evel i ncre as e f

or bei ng a l ea der or organi ze r, the cum ul at i ve i m pactdo es notc ons t i tut e i m pr ope rdoubl e c ount i ng be c aus e e a c h pr ovi s i on s e rve s auni que p u rp o s e . Se e U

n ite d S ta te s v . H

o lt , 510 F . 3d 1007, 1011 ( 9th C i r . 2007) . T he di stri ctcourtdi d n otabuse i t s di sc re t i on by concl ud i ng thata w i thi n-G ui del i nes s e nt e nc e w a s “ s uf

f i c i e nt , butnotgr e a t e rtha n ne c e s s a ry , t o c om pl yw i th the pu rposes ” of s ent enci ng . 18 U . S . C . § 3 55 3(a) . 7 . A rm s te a d ’s c o n te n tio n th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u rt im p o s e d h is s e n te n c e in r e ta lia tio n f

o re x e r c is in g h is c o n s titu tio n a l r ig h t to tr ia l is w ith o u t m e r it. See U n i ted S ta tes v. N

a rra m o re , 36 F . 3d 84 5, 84 7 (9th C i r. 19 94 ) ( “ Ince nt i ves f or pl ea5

ba r ga i ni ng a r e notunc ons t i tut i ona l m e r e l ybe c aus e the ya r e i nt e nde d t o e nc our a ge a def endantt o forego con st i tut i on al l y prot ec t ed cond uct . ”) . AF F I RME D.