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FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION FEB 17 2011 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 09-10276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