United States v. Joshua Knaup

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 17-50107 · 2018-02-16 · Unpublished

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Joshua D. KNAUP, Defendant-Appellant

Area: other
Panel: Edward Leavy (author), Ferdinand F. Fernandez, Mary H. Murguia

Analysis

No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 16 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 17-50107 Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 3:16-cr-00560-CAB v. MEMORANDUM * JOSHUA D. KNAUP, Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Cathy Ann Bencivengo, District Judge, Presiding Submitted February 13, 2018** Before: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.

Joshua D. Knaup appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 33-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea convictions for two counts of wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Knaup contends that the district court abused its discretion by imposing * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). sentence based on internally inconsistent factual findings. We disagree. The district court’s remarks consistently reflect its finding that Knaup defrauded investors. The court’s speculation that Knaup may have come to believe his misstatements was not inconsistent with that finding. Further, the 33-month sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, including the need to provide just punishment for the offense. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007).

AFFIRMED.

2 17-50107