United States v. Gary Lane

MEMORANDUM

Gary Lane appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty plea to twelve counts of mail fraud and five counts of attempted tax evasion. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 18 U.S.C. § 3742 (a). We affirm.

The district court did not err — and certainly did not clearly err, see United States v. Aragbaye, 234 F.3d 1101, 1107 (9th Cir.2000), superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in United States v. McEnry, 659 F.3d 893 , 899 n. 8 (9th Cir.2011) — in imposing a two-level enhancement on the basis that Lane’s offense involved sophisticated means. See U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2Bl.l(b)(10)(C) (2013). “Conduct need not involve highly complex schemes or exhibit exceptional brilliance to justify a sophisticated means enhancement.” United States v. Jennings, 711 F.3d 1144, 1145 (9th Cir.2013). Lane’s conduct was comparable to conduct that we have previously held sufficient to support imposition of this sophisticated means enhancement. See United States v. Tanke, 743 F.3d 1296, 1307 (9th Cir.2014); United States v. Horob, 735 F.3d 866, 868-69, 872 (9th Cir.2013) (per curiam).

Likewise, the district court did not clearly err, see United States v.…