United States v. Booker

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: July 17, 2025
• Docket: 24-1629
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 17 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 24-1629 D.C. No. Plaintiff - Appellee, 2:21-cr-00168-JAD-EJY-3 v. MEMORANDUM* STANLEY BOOKER,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada Jennifer A. Dorsey, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted July 9, 2025** San Francisco, California

Before: H.A. THOMAS and DE ALBA, Circuit Judges, and RAKOFF, District Judge.***

Stanley Booker appeals his sentence under 18 U.S.C. §§ 371, 2113(a), and

2314 on the ground that the multiple counts to which he pled guilty should have

* 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). *** The Honorable Jed S. Rakoff, United States District Judge for the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation. been grouped together for sentencing purposes pursuant to U.S. Sentencing

Guidelines (“U.S.S.G.”) § 3D1.2(b). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.

We affirm.

Booker concedes that plain error review applies to his claim as he failed to

object to the applicable Guidelines sentencing range before the district court. “An

error is plain if it is clear or obvious under current law.” United States v. De La

Fuente, 353 F.3d 766, 769 (9th Cir. 2003) (citing United States v. Olano, 507 U.S.

725, 734 (1993)). “An error cannot be plain where there is no controlling authority

on point and where the most closely analogous precedent leads to conflicting

results.” Id. Booker has provided no authority to support his position that

U.S.S.G. § 3D1.2(b) applies to the counts to which he pled guilty. Therefore, even

assuming the district court erred by not grouping certain counts together for

sentencing purposes, the error was not plain as it was not “clear or obvious under

current law.” Id.

AFFIRMED.

2 24-1629