Court Opinion

ID: 4162841
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2017-04-24 21:05:54.315659+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:22:49.615104
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                          FILED
                     UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       APR 24 2017
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                            FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                       No. 16-50163

                Plaintiff-Appellee,             D.C. No. 2:11-cr-00543-JFW

 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
PAUL BAKER, a.k.a. Darwin Stanton
Baker, Jr., a.k.a. Paul D. Baker, a.k.a. Paul
Douglas Baker,

                Defendant-Appellant.

                    Appeal from the United States District Court
                       for the Central District of California
                     John F. Walter, District Judge, Presiding

                             Submitted April 11, 2017**

Before:      GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

      Paul Baker appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the

aggregate 135-month sentence imposed following his jury-trial convictions for

conspiracy to commit mail fraud, wire fraud, and offer and sale of unregistered

      *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
      **
             The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
securities, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371; mail fraud securities, in violation of 18

U.S.C. § 1341; wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343; offer and sale of

unregistered securities and aiding and abetting and causing an act to be done, in

violation of 15 U.S.C. §§ 77e and 77x and 18 U.S.C. § 2. We have jurisdiction

under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

      Baker contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to address

his request for a downward departure for mental and emotional conditions and

physical condition under U.S.S.G. §§ 5H1.3 and 5H1.4. We review for plain error,

see United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2010), and

conclude that there was none. The record reflects that the court considered Baker’s

arguments and sufficiently explained its reasons for concluding that a mid-range

sentence was warranted. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir.

2008) (en banc).

      AFFIRMED.

                                       2                                        16-50163