FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION OCT 05 2011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. 10-50425
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 8:10-cr-00001-JVS
v.
MEMORANDUM *
TARAKESWAR CHAUDHARY, a.k.a.
Tarak Chaudhary,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
James V. Selna, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 27, 2011 **
Before: SILVERMAN, W. FLETCHER, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Tarakeswar Chaudhary appeals from the 70-month sentence imposed
following his guilty-plea conviction for wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 1343. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
*
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).
Chaudhary first contends that the district court erred in imposing an
obstruction of justice enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1. The record supports
the court’s conclusion that Chaudhary’s movement of his computers and
incriminating documents was purposefully calculated, and likely, to thwart the
investigation of his crime. Therefore, the court did not abuse its discretion in
imposing the enhancement. See U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1 cmt. n.1; United States v.
McNally, 159 F.3d 1215, 1217 (9th Cir. 1998) (application of obstruction of justice
enhancement is reviewed for abuse of discretion).
Chaudhary next contends that the district court erred in denying his request
for a continuance to file supplemental briefing on the issue of the obstruction of
justice enhancement. Given the timing of Chaudhary’s request, as well as the fact
that he had previously briefed the question at issue, the court did not abuse its
discretion. See GCB Communications, Inc. v. U.S. South Communications, Inc.,
Nos. 09-17646, 10-16086, 2011 WL 1613152, at *3 (9th Cir. Apr. 29, 2011) (case
management decisions of district court are reviewed for abuse of discretion);
United States v. Richter, 488 F.2d 170, 173-74 (9th Cir. 1973).
Chaudhary also contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable. In
light of the totality of the circumstances and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing
2 10-50425
factors, Chaudhary’s below-Guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable. See
Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007).
Chaudhary lastly contends that he was denied due process by the court’s
implicit reference to his ethnic background at sentencing. The record belies this
contention. The court’s expressed concern was with the abuse of trust resulting
from perpetrators of fraud targeting members of their own social group; it did not
impose sentence on the basis of Chaudhary’s ethnicity.
AFFIRMED.
3 10-50425