Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JOSEPH KAI CHENG, aka Kam Kai Cheng, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-06-11
Citations: 282 F. App'x 535
Docket Number: No. 07-50278
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. JOSEPH KAI CHENG, aka Kam Kai Cheng, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before: FISHER and PAEZ, Circuit Judges, and CAMPBELL, District Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 282
Pages: 535–536

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. JOSEPH KAI CHENG, aka Kam Kai Cheng, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 07-50278.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted May 5, 2008.
Filed June 11, 2008.
Mark Aveis, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Criminal Division, Los Angeles, CA, Michael J. Raphael, Esq., Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Criminal Division, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Michael J. Treman, Michael J. Treman Attorney at Law, Santa Barbara, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: FISHER and PAEZ, Circuit Judges, and CAMPBELL, District Judge.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
The Honorable David G. Campbell, United States District Judge for the District of Arizona, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Defendant-appellant Joseph Kai Cheng appeals his 30-month sentence imposed pursuant to his plea of guilty to one count of conspiracy to traffic in counterfeit goods and contraband cigarettes in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371 and to one count of trafficking in counterfeit goods in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2320. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
The district court properly calculated the Sentencing Guidelines range and did not abuse its discretion in applying Application Note 2 to U.S.S.G. § 2B5.3. See United States v. Cantrell, 433 F.3d 1269, 1279 (9th Cir.2006).
Because Cheng failed to object at sentencing to the standard of proof used to establish the infringement amount we review for plain error. See United States v. Riley, 335 F.3d 919, 925 (9th Cir.2003); see also Fed.R.Crim.P. 52(b). The weight of the evidence would satisfy even the clear and convincing standard. The district court properly determined that the infringement amount was in excess of $1 million.
The district court did not clearly err in declining to apply a four-level decrease for Cheng's role in the offense. See Cantrell, 433 F.3d at 1283.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.