Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Joseph Soo HAN, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-03-25
Citations: 320 F. App'x 599
Docket Number: No. 08-10247
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Joseph Soo HAN, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: LEAVY, HAWKINS, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 320
Pages: 599–601

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Joseph Soo HAN, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 08-10247.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 18, 2009.
Filed March 25, 2009.
Christina Brown, Jeffrey T. Tao, USLY&emdash;Office of the U.S. Attorney, Las Vegas, NV, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Osvaldo E. Fumo, Las Vegas, NV, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: LEAVY, HAWKINS, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Joseph Soo Han appeals from the 100month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for bank robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Han contends that the district court clearly erred by applying a threelevel enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2B3.1(b)(2)(E) for possession of a dangerous weapon. We conclude that the district court did not clearly err, because the enhancement is applicable where a defendant uses an object to create the impression it is a dangerous weapon. See U.S.S.G. § 2B3.1, cmt. n. 2. (2007); see also United States v. Bendtzen, 542 F.3d 722, 727 (9th Cir.2008).
Han also contends that the district court clearly erred by refusing to grant a two-level reduction for acceptance of under U.S.S.G. § 3El.l(a), because he admitted the conduct comprising the offense of conviction. We conclude that the district court did not clearly err because Han falsely denied or frivolously contested relevant conduct supporting the weapon enhancement. See U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1, cmt. n. 1(a) (2007); see also Unit ed States v. Rutledge, 28 F.3d 998, 1002 (9th Cir.1994).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.