United States v. Rhett Trujillo

519 F. App'x 477
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
DecidedMay 21, 2013
Docket12-50429
StatusUnpublished

This text of 519 F. App'x 477 (United States v. Rhett Trujillo) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States v. Rhett Trujillo, 519 F. App'x 477 (9th Cir. 2013).

Opinion

MEMORANDUM *

Appellant Rhett Christopher Trujillo (Trujillo) appeals the sentence imposed by the district court. We affirm.

1. The district court did not err in applying a 5-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2B5.1(b)(2)(A) because there was sufficient evidence in the record to support the court’s finding that Trujillo used the materials in his possession to manufacture counterfeit currency. See United States v. Allen, 434 F.3d 1166, 1172 (9th Cir.2006) (holding that the enhancement under § 2B5.1(b)(2)(A) applies where there is “some linkage” between the counterfeiting materials in the defendant’s possession and “the actual production of counterfeit obligations”).

2. Trujillo’s sentence was both procedurally sound and substantively reasonable. The sentence was procedurally sound because the district court properly applied the enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2B5.1(b)(2)(A), correctly calculated the Sentencing Guidelines range, and considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 993 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc) (discussing procedural error). The resulting within-Guidelines sentence was substantively reasonable. See United States v. Blinkinsop, 606 F.3d 1110, 1116 (9th Cir.2010) (noting that a within-Guidelines sentence is generally reasonable in the “mine run of cases”).

AFFIRMED.

*

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

United States v. Blinkinsop
606 F.3d 1110 (Ninth Circuit, 2010)
United States v. Ted Allen, AKA Ted Alan Wachtin
434 F.3d 1166 (Ninth Circuit, 2006)
United States v. Carty
520 F.3d 984 (Ninth Circuit, 2008)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
519 F. App'x 477, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-rhett-trujillo-ca9-2013.