Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Stephen Salvatore INTRIERI, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-02-26
Citations: 594 F. App'x 406
Docket Number: No. 14-30030
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Stephen Salvatore INTRIERI, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: O’SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 594
Pages: 406–407

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Stephen Salvatore INTRIERI, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 14-30030.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 17, 2015.
Filed Feb. 26, 2015.
Timothy John Racicot, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Missoula, MT, Leif Johnson, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Billings, MT, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
John Rhodes, Esquire, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Defenders of Montana, Missoula, MT, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, and FERNANDEZ, 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
Stephen Salvatore Intrieri appeals from the district court's judgment and challenges the 30-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Intrieri contends that the district court erred by applying the sophisticated-means enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2Bl.l(b)(10)(C). We review the district court's interpretation of the Guidelines de novo and its factual findings for clear error. See United States v. Tanke, 743 F.3d 1296, 1306 (9th Cir.2014). The district court did not err by applying the enhancement because Intrieri used multiple aliases and set up a fake business in another jurisdiction to deceive his victims. See U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1 cmt. n. 9(B); Tanke, 743 F.3d at 1307-08 (enhancement may be imposed even when concealment efforts are not highly complex).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.