Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kenneth KETNER, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-12-29
Citations: 305 F. App'x 437
Docket Number: No. 07-50328
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Kenneth KETNER, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 305
Pages: 437–439

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Kenneth KETNER, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 07-50328.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 17, 2008 .
Filed Dec. 29, 2008.
Michael J. Raphael, Esq., Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, Andrew Stolper, Ann Luotto Wolf, Esq., Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Santa Ana, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
William J. Kopeny, William J. Kopeny & Associates, Irvine, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: GOODWIN, TROTT and RYMER, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Kenneth Ketner appeals from the 57-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343, and money laundering, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1957. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Ketner contends that the district court erred by refusing to consider his substantial assistance and cooperation as relevant to its analysis of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. We conclude that the district
court understood its discretion and properly considered all mitigating arguments. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 995 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc).
Ketner also contends that the district court erred by relying on unreliable statements when imposing the sentence. We conclude that the district court did not improperly consider statements lacking "minimal indicia of reliability." See United States v. Littlesun, 444 F.3d 1196, 1199-1200 (9th Cir.2006).
Because we conclude that the sentence is substantively reasonable, we affirm. See Gall v. United States, — U.S. -, 128 S.Ct. 586, 596-97, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provid ed by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.