USA V. SCOTT SUMMERHAYS, No. 15-10267 (9th Cir. 2016)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED AUG 02 2016 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, No. 15-10267 D.C. No. 3:12-cr-00022-LRH v. MEMORANDUM* SCOTT H. SUMMERHAYS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada Larry R. Hicks, District Judge, Presiding Submitted July 26, 2016** Before: SCHROEDER, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges. Scott H. Summerhays appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges his guilty-plea conviction and aggregate 234-month sentence for wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343; money laundering, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1957; and identity theft and aggravated identity theft, in violation of 18 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 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. §§ 1028(a)(7) and 1028A. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. Summerhays, who chose to represent himself, contends that he received ineffective assistance from his standby counsel. Assuming without deciding that Summerhays can assert an ineffective assistance claim against his standby counsel, we decline to consider this claim on direct appeal. See United States v. Rahman, 642 F.3d 1257, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 2011) (this court reviews ineffective assistance claims on direct appeal only where the record is sufficiently developed or inadequate representation is obvious). Summerhays next contends that the 234-month sentence is substantively unreasonable. The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing Summerhay’s sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The low-end Guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors and the totality of the circumstances, including the sophistication of Summerhays’s scheme and the loss amount. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. AFFIRMED. 2 15-10267

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.