Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Joshua D. KNAUP, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2018-02-16
Citations: 711 F. App'x 453
Docket Number: No. 17-50107
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Joshua D. KNAUP, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 711
Pages: 453–453

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Joshua D. KNAUP, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 17-50107
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted February 13, 2018
Filed February 16, 2018
Andrew James Galvin, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Helen H. Hong, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Emily J. Keifer, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the US Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee
Kristi A. Hughes, Doug Keller, Attorney, Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant
Before: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Joshua D. Knaup appeals from the district court's- judgment and challenges the 33-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea convictions for two counts of wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Knaup contends that the district court abused its discretion by imposing sentence based on internally inconsistent factual findings. We disagree. The district court's remarks consistently reflect its finding that Knaup defrauded investors. The court's speculation that Knaup may have come to believe his misstatements was not inconsistent with that finding. Further, the 33-month sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, including the need to provide just punishment for the offense. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.