Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Matthew Craig RUBIN, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-06-27
Citations: 581 F. App'x 643
Docket Number: No. 13-50261
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Matthew Craig RUBIN, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 581
Pages: 643–644

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Matthew Craig RUBIN, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 13-50261.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 25, 2014.
Filed June 27, 2014.
Jean-Claude Andre, Assistant U.S., Ruth Pinkel, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Michelle Anderson Barth, Burlington, VT, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: HAWKINS, TALLMAN, and NGUYEN, 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
Matthew Craig Rubin appeals from the district court's judgment and challenges the 78-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for conducting transactions in criminally derived property, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1957, and witness tampering, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1512(b)(1). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Rubin contends that the district court erred by denying his request for a downward adjustment for acceptance of responsibility under U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1 despite his sentencing enhancement for obstruction of justice under section 3C1.1. We review the district court's determination of whether a defendant has accepted responsibility for clear error. See United States v. Rosas, 615 F.3d 1058, 1066 (9th Cir.2010). The district court did not clearly err in finding that Rubin's obstruction of justice, including his flight to Mexico while sentencing was pending in this case, was inconsistent with acceptance of responsibility. See id. at 1066-67.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.