Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Casey LUCZAK, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-02-22
Citations: 415 F. App'x 776
Docket Number: No. 10-10279
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Casey LUCZAK, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: CANBY, FERNANDEZ, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 415
Pages: 776–777

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Casey LUCZAK, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 10-10279.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 15, 2011.
Filed Feb. 22, 2011.
Christina Brown, Assistant U.S., Robert Lawrence Ellman, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Las Vegas, NV, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
David J. Farnham, The Farnham Law Firm, Roswell, GA, Linda S. Sheffield, Linda S. Sheffield Attorney at Law, Atlanta, GA, Bret O. Whipple, Esquire, Counsel, Law Office of Bret Whipple, Las Vegas, NV, for D efendant-App ellant.
Casey Luczak, Roswell, GA, pro se.
Before: CANBY, FERNANDEZ, and M. SMITH, 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
Casey Luczak appeals from the 121-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343, and making a false statement, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Luczak contends that trial counsel was ineffective. As a general rule, this court does not review claims of ineffective assistance of counsel on direct appeal. See United States v. Benford, 574 F.3d 1228, 1231 (9th Cir.2009). Luczak has not demonstrated that this is an "unusual case" justifying consideration of this contention on direct appeal. See id.
Luczak also contends that the district court erred by applying a two-level enhancement for use of "sophisticated means" pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2Bl.l(b)(8)(C) (2002). The district court did not err because Luczak's scheme involved "especially complex or especially intricate offense conduct" in its "execution or concealment." U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1 app. n. 6(B) (2002).
Luczak further contends that the district court failed to consider his gambling addiction when it imposed his sentence and that his sentence is substantively unreasonable. The record reflects that the district court did not procedurally err, see United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 991-93 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc), and that, under the totality of the circumstances, the sentence at the bottom of the guidelines range is substantively reasonable. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007); see also Carty, 520 F.3d at 993.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.