USA V. RICHARD ROSSIGNOL, No. 14-50350 (9th Cir. 2016)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED AUG 23 2016 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, No. 14-50350 D.C. No. 2:12-cr-00995-ABC v. MEMORANDUM* RICHARD M. ROSSIGNOL, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Audrey B. Collins, District Judge, Presiding Submitted August 16, 2016** Before: O’SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges. Richard M. Rossignol appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 240-month sentence imposed following his jury-trial conviction for conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1349. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. * 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). Rossignol contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable in light of the alleged sentencing disparity between his sentence and that of his coconspirator, and because the 24-level enhancement he received under U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(1)(m) overstated the seriousness of the offense. The district court did not abuse its discretion. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, including the number of victims and the loss amount. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51; see also United States v. Ressam, 679 F.3d 1069, 1094-95 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc) (finding no unwarranted sentencing disparity between individuals who plead guilty and those who put the government to its burden of proof). AFFIRMED. 2 14-50350

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.