United States v. Bao Lu

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FEB 17 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 09-10276
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 2:99-cr-00433-WBS
v.
MEMORANDUM *
BAO LU, a.k.a Hoang Nguyen,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
William B. Shubb, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 15, 2011 **
Before: CANBY, FERNANDEZ, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Bao Lu appeals from the district court’s decision following a limited remand
under United States v. Ameline, 409 F.3d 1073 (9th Cir. 2005) (en banc). We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Lu contends that his life-time term of imprisonment is unreasonable because
*
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).
the district court failed to take into account his youth and post-sentencing
rehabilitation. The district court conducted a proper Ameline review, see United
States v. Silva, 472 F.3d 683, 685 (9th Cir. 2007), and it “properly understood the
full scope of [its] discretion” following United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220(2005). See United States v. Combs, 470 F.3d 1294, 1297 (9th Cir. 2006).
Moreover, the district court was not required to consider Lu’s post-sentencing
rehabilitation. See United States v. Bernardo Sanchez, 569 F.3d 995, 997-98 (9th
Cir. 2009).
AFFIRMED.
2 09-10276