FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAY 11 2012
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. 11-50045
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 2:06-cr-00335-GAF-1
v.
MEMORANDUM *
JOHN RAYMOND BEZEREDI,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Gary A. Feess, District Judge, Presiding
Argued & Submitted April 10, 2012
Pasadena, California
Before: B. FLETCHER, KLEINFELD, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
John Raymond Bezeredi appeals his within-guidelines sentence, following
his plea of guilty to mail fraud and telemarketing fraud against the elderly.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Bezeredi, a Canadian citizen, agreed to extradition, and was ultimately
sentenced to 109 months of imprisonment, followed by three years of supervised
release, and ordered to pay a special assessment and restitution. He now raises a
number of procedural challenges to his sentence. We review sentencing decisions
for abuse of discretion. United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 993 (9th Cir. 2008)
(en banc). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
Bezeredi first argues the district court erred in considering five victim
impact statements at sentencing. “Victim impact statements are admissible at
sentencing unless their admission would be so unduly prejudicial that it renders the
sentence fundamentally unfair.” Beaty v. Stewart, 303 F.3d 975, 985 (9th Cir.
2002) (internal quotation marks omitted). These impact statements are not unduly
prejudicial. Bezeredi concedes that he did not raise in district court his contention
that the letters only indicated that the victims sent small amounts of money to him,
and the one letter that indicated a large amount only stated that the victim sent
$200,000 to “a man in Canada,” not naming Bezeredi. The district court did not
abuse its discretion in considering the letters at sentencing. See United States v.
Monaco, 852 F.2d 1143, 1150 (9th Cir. 1988) (holding district court did not err at
sentencing when it considered “victim impact letters [that] do not refer specifically
2
to [defendant], to any other defendant by name, or to any specific allegation in the
indictment”).
Bezeredi also argues the district court increased his sentence because of
“careless” statements his own defense psychologist made in a report he submitted.
The judge did not abuse his discretion in applying his own judgment to the
persuasiveness of the defense psychologist’s view and in not reducing the sentence
on account of that report. See Carty, 520 F.3d at 993.
Bezeredi also argues that the district court erred by giving little weight to
Bezeredi’s chart that listed sentences received by others convicted of fraud. The
chart listed sentences that were shorter, the same, and much longer than Bezeredi’s,
but did not indicate what factors dictated the sentence in each particular case.
Bezeredi’s fraud victimized over 4,500 people and he received a within-guidelines
sentence of 109 months. He has not pointed to a case with similar facts where the
defendant received a different sentence. See United States v. Becerril-Lopez, 541
F.3d 881, 895 (9th Cir. 2008) (“[W]e have trouble imagining why a sentence
within the Guidelines range would create a disparity, since it represents the
sentence that most similarly situated defendants are likely to receive.”); see also
3
United States v. Treadwell, 593 F.3d 990, 1012 (9th Cir. 2010) (“Too many factors
dictate the exercise of sound sentencing discretion in a particular case to make the
inquiry [defendant] urges helpful or even feasible.”). The district court did not
abuse its discretion in giving little weight to Bezeredi’s chart. Nor would disparity
demonstrate error in the sentence. Treadwell, 593 F.3d at 1011–12.
Bezeredi’s argument that the government should have been required to move
for a U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1 departure for cooperation is meritless, because Bezeredi
vitiated the value of any cooperation he may have given by submitting a fraudulent
document to the FBI, and because the decision was the government’s to make.
United States v. Flores, 559 F.3d 1016, 1019 (9th Cir. 2009). His argument that
the district court should have held an evidentiary hearing on the amount of loss is
meritless because he did not put the amount at issue and has not pointed to any
evidence that might have added to what the judge considered.
Bezeredi’s argument that he should have received a lower sentence because
he waived extradition has little force, because he fought extradition for four years,
and received a mid-range guidelines sentence.
4
AFFIRMED.
5