United States Ninth Circuit

The district court's imposition of the same total sentence on remand for resentencing for defendant's convictions for bank fraud, wire fraud, money laundering, and bankruptcy scheme to defraud, after this court had overturned defendant's convictions for false statements to a bank and aggravated identity theft, is affirmed, where: 1) the presumption of vindictiveness does not apply when a district court does not impose a more severe overall sentence on remand, even when, as here, the vacated conviction carried a mandatory consecutive sentence; 2) defendant failed to show actual vindictiveness; and 3) the district court properly considered as relevant uncharged conduct that was a part of a common scheme with the offense of conviction; 3) the district court did not err in applying a sophisticated means enhancement; and 4) the district court did not err in rejecting defendant's challenge to the accuracy of the trial transcripts.

Appellate Information

• Decided 11/07/2013
• Published 11/07/2013

Judges

• PER CURIAM

Court

• United States Ninth Circuit

Counsel