Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Andrew P. DELIO, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-07-18
Citations: 443 F. App'x 295
Docket Number: No. 09-50339
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Andrew P. DELIO, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: SCHROEDER, ALARCÓN, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 443
Pages: 295–296

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Andrew P. DELIO, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 09-50339.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 12, 2011.
Filed July 18, 2011.
J. Lana Morton-Owens, Assistant U.S., Jerry Chenwei Yang, Assistant U.S., Michael J. Raphael, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Joseph Scott Klapach, Klapach & Kla-pach, Beverly Hills, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: SCHROEDER, ALARCÓN, and LEAVY, 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
Andrew P. Delio appeals from the 15-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343, and impersonating a Federal Officer or Employee, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 912. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Delio contends that the district court procedurally erred at sentencing by relying on a clearly erroneous interpretation of a 1994 incident, and that the above-Guidelines sentence is substantively unreasonable. The record reflects that the district court did not procedurally err, and in light of the totality of the circumstances, the sentence is substantively reasonable. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 991-93 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.