22:I[98912,["/_next/static/chunks/0asocxi83kb~5.js","/_next/static/chunks/0n4z.7yu76je-.js","/_next/static/chunks/0eyt_ou8dj52g.js","/_next/static/chunks/01bcia3bjqt9z.js","/_next/static/chunks/15egrlmmf_yst.js"],"CaseDetailGate"] 23:T43a,MEMORANDUM 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 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 , 128 S.Ct. 586 , 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.24:T467,

MEMORANDUM

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 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 , 128 S.Ct. 586 , 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007).

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.