United States v. David Schultz, II
Opinion
Opinion
MEMORANDUM
David Schultz appeals his 108-month sentence of imprisonment. He raises three issues on appeal: (1) whether the district court erred in finding that he was a supervisor and applying a two-level enhancement Sentencing Guideline; (2) whether the district court erred in considering at sentencing a state criminal conviction that occurred subsequent to the instant offense; and (3) whether his sentence is substantively unreasonable. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We affirm.
Because the parties are familiar with the facts of the case, we do not recite them except to the extent necessary to aid in understanding this deposition.
I. The Supervisor Enhancement
A finding that a defendant was an organizer, leader, or supervisor is a factual finding reviewed for clear error. United States v. Rivera, 527 F.3d 891, 908 (9th Cir. 2008). A finding of fact is clearly erroneous “if it is (1) illogical, (2) implausible, or (3) without support in inferences that may be drawn from the facts in the record.” United States v. Pineda-Doval, 692 F.3d 942, 944 (9th Cir. 2012) (quoting Red Lion Hotels Franchising, Inc. v. MAK, LLC, 663 F.3d 1080, 1087 (9th Cir. 2011)).