Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Scott H. SUMMERHAYS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-08-02
Citations: 667 F. App'x 903
Docket Number: No. 15-10267
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Scott H. SUMMERHAYS, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: SCHROEDER, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 667
Pages: 903–903

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Scott H. SUMMERHAYS, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 15-10267
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 26, 2016
August 02, 2016
William Ramsey Reed, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Elizabeth Olson White, Esquire, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Reno, NV, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Mark Eibert, Esquire, Half Moon Bay, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: SCHROEDER, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, 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
Scott H. Summerhays appeals from the district court's judgment and challenges his guilty-plea conviction and aggregate 234-month sentence for wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343; money laundering, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1957; and identity theft and aggravated identity theft, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1028(a)(7) and 1028A We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Summerhays, who chose to represent himself, contends that he received ineffective assistance from his standby counsel. Assuming without deciding that Summer-hays can assert an ineffective assistance claim against his standby counsel, we decline to consider this claim on direct appeal. See United States v. Rahman, 642 F.3d 1257, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 2011) (this court reviews ineffective assistance claims on direct appeal only where the record is sufficiently developed or inadequate representation is obvious).
Summerhays next contends that the 234-month sentence is substantively unreasonable. The district court , did not abuse its discretion in imposing Summerhay's sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). The low-end Guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors and the totality of the circumstances, including the sophistication of Summerhays's scheme and the loss amount. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51, 128 S.Ct. 586.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.