NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCTOBER 20 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 13-50096
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 8:10-cr-00225-CJC-1
v.
MEMORANDUM*
JOHANNES VERMAAK,
Defendant - Appellant.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 13-50097
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 8:10-cr-00224-CJC-1
v.
JOHANNES VERMAAK,
Defendant - Appellant.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 13-50240
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 8:10-cr-00224-CJC-1
v.
JOHANNES VERMAAK,
Defendant - Appellant.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 13-50241
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 8:10-cr-00225-CJC-1
v.
JOHANNES VERMAAK,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Cormac J. Carney, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted October 7, 2014
Pasadena, California
Before: TALLMAN, BEA, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Johannes Vermaak appeals his 84-month sentence for mail fraud. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
The district court did not plainly err in its consideration of aggravating factors
at sentencing. To the extent the district court considered Vermaak’s inability to pay
restitution, it did so only as part of its analysis of victim impact. This is permissible
2
under United States v. Rangel, 697 F.3d 795, 803 (9th Cir. 2012), and 18 U.S.C. §
3553(a).
Nor did the district court plainly err by failing to explain more thoroughly its
above-Guidelines sentence. The district court considered the appropriate
sentencing factors and provided a sufficient explanation for the upward variance to
permit meaningful appellate review. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992
(9th Cir. 2008) (en banc).
Finally, the 84-month sentence was not substantively unreasonable. The
aggravating factors identified by the sentencing court sufficiently justify the upward
variance, so the sentence was not an abuse of discretion. See id. at 991-93.
AFFIRMED.
3