USA v. Jason Christensen, No. 09-30372 (9th Cir. 2010)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 24 2010 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, No. 09-30372 D.C. No. 2:08-cr-06027-LRS-1 v. MEMORANDUM * JASON PAUL CHRISTENSEN, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington Lonny R. Suko, Chief District Judge, Presiding Submitted July 7, 2010 ** San Francisco, California Before: HUG, SKOPIL and BEEZER, Circuit Judges. Defendant-appellant Jason Paul Christensen ( Christensen ) appeals from a final judgment convicting him of eight counts of mail fraud, in violation of 18 * 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). U.S.C. § 1341, and eight counts of money laundering, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(1)(A)(i). Christensen pleaded guilty with a plea agreement, and the district court sentenced him to 109 months imprisonment, 12 months less than the low end of the applicable guidelines range. We have jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. The facts of this case are known to the parties. We do not repeat them. I When the defendant does not object to a purported procedural error, we review the district court s actions for plain error. United States v. Ameline, 409 F.3d 1073, 1078 (9th Cir. 2005) (en banc). We review all sentencing decisions for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 993 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc). 2 II Christensen fails to show that the district court committed any procedural error at all, much less one that affects substantial rights. United States v. Sylvester Norman Knows His Gun, III, 438 F.3d 913, 918 (9th Cir. 2006) (internal quotations and citations omitted). Likewise, the record indicates that the district court properly exercised its discretion and imposed a substantively reasonable sentence.1 The district court thoughtfully considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors and imposed a sentence that was 12 months less than the low end of the applicable advisory guidelines range. See United States v. Plouffe, 445 F.3d 1126, 1131 (9th Cir. 2006) (stating that the determination whether a sentence is substantively reasonable is guided by 1 We deny Christensen s February 1, 2010 Motion to Take Judicial Notice of Video Evidence. 3 the sentencing factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), including the sentencing range established by the Sentencing Guidelines ). AFFIRMED. 4
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
