Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Uwem USANGA, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-09-15
Citations: 202 F. App'x 160
Docket Number: No. 05-50107
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Uwem USANGA, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before: PREGERSON, T.G. NELSON, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 202
Pages: 160–161

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Uwem USANGA, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 05-50107.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 11, 2006.
Decided Sept. 15, 2006.
Becky S. Walker, Esq., Cynthia Valenzuela, Esq., Office of the U.S. Attorney Criminal Division, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Gretchen Fusilier, Esq., Carlsbad, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Uwem Usanga, Los Angeles, CA, pro se.
Before: PREGERSON, T.G. NELSON, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Uwem Usanga appeals from his 18-month sentence imposed by the district court following his guilty-plea conviction for health care fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1347, and false statements relating to health care matters in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1035. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Usanga contends that the district court erred in applying sentencing enhancements for a loss amount of more than $500,000 and more than minimal planning, absent a jury determination of the facts necessary to apply the enhancements be yond a reasonable doubt, or an admission of those facts by Usanga. This contention is foreclosed by United States v. Staten, 466 F.3d 708, 717-720 (9th Cir.2006).
Usanga further contends that because the record is unclear as to whether the district court granted a downward departure as a result of his lost opportunity to serve his sentence concurrently, a remand is necessary to determine whether the sentence is reasonable. We disagree. Upon review, we conclude that the record reflects that the court calculated the applicable Guidelines range, considered the factors specified in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), and imposed a sentence below the Guidelines range. We conclude that the sentence was not unreasonable. See United States v. Mix, 457 F.3d 906, 912-14 (9th Cir.2006).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.