Opinion ID: 3160112
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Lloyd’s Sentencing Appeal

Text: Lloyd pleaded guilty to one count of wire fraud in each of the two cases naming him as a defendant, and he does not 3 The government also cites United States v. Boatner, 99 F.3d 831 (7th Cir. 1996), in which the court held that the defendants, conspirators in an insurance-fraud scheme, were accountable for the entire scheme’s fraud losses despite the fact that they had not pooled profits or resources. The court distinguished Studley because the Boatner defendants “concocted a common story; they feigned injuries together; they lied to the police together; and they retained the same attorney to pursue a fraudulent claim against a single victim.” Id. at 837. No such evidence is present here. 26 UNITED STATES V. LLOYD challenge his convictions. He does challenge the 156-month sentence the district court imposed as both procedurally flawed and substantively unreasonable. “Procedural errors include, but are not limited to, incorrectly calculating the Guidelines range, treating the Guidelines as mandatory, failing to properly consider the [18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a) factors, using clearly erroneous facts when calculating the Guidelines range or determining the sentence, and failing to provide an adequate explanation for the sentence imposed.” United States v. Armstead, 552 F.3d 769, 776 (9th Cir. 2008). The district court’s 156-month sentence was a downward variance from the Guidelines range of 210 to 262 months. Lloyd asserts—for the first time on this appeal—that the district court failed adequately to explain why it did not impose an even lower below-Guidelines sentence. His argument is without merit. The district court thoroughly explained its reasons for the sentence in over 20 pages of transcript. A careful review of the record satisfies us that the sentence was procedurally sound and that the district court did not abuse its discretion, much less plainly err, in the below-Guidelines sentence imposed and the explanation provided. Lloyd’s argument that the district court erred in not departing further goes to substantive reasonableness. See United States v. Ellis, 641 F.3d 411, 421 (9th Cir. 2011). The record shows that the 156-month sentence, well below the bottom of the Guidelines range, was substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). UNITED STATES V. LLOYD 27 We affirm.