Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Richard M. ROSSIGNOL, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-08-23
Citations: 668 F. App'x 298
Docket Number: No. 14-50350
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Richard M. ROSSIGNOL, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: O’SCANNLAIN, LEAYY, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 668
Pages: 298–299

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Richard M. ROSSIGNOL, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 14-50350
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted August 16, 2016
Filed August 23, 2016
Jean-Claude Andre, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Stephen Anthony Cazares, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, John P. Taddei, Trial Attorney, Washington, DC, Steven David Clymer, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Syracuse, NY.
Richard M. Rossignol, Lompoc, CA, Pro Se.
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, LEAYY, and CLIFTON, 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
Richard M. Rossignol appeals from the district court's judgment and challenges the 240-month sentence imposed following his jury-trial conviction for conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1349. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Rossignol contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable in light of the alleged sentencing disparity between his sentence and that of his co-conspirator, and because the 24-level enhancement he received under U.S.S.G. § 2Bl.l(b)(l)(m) overstated the seriousness of the offense. The district court did not abuse its discretion. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). The sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, including the number of victims and the loss amount. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51, 128 S.Ct. 586; see also United States v. Ressam, 679 F.3d 1069, 1094-95 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc) (finding no unwarranted sentencing disparity between individuals who plead guilty and those who put the government to its burden of proof).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.