United States v. Adrian Lee Chow

977 F.2d 592 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Adrian Lee CHOW, Defendant-Appellant. No. 91-10233. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted Oct. 1, 1992. * Decided Oct. 7, 1992. 1 Before REINHARDT and KOZINSKI, Circuit Judges, and EZRA, District Judge *** . 2 MEMORANDUM ** 3 Adrian Chow appeals his sentence under the Sentencing Guidelines for impersonating an officer of the United States, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 912 . We affirm. BACKGROUND 4 On October 17, 1990, Chow was indicted on three counts of obtaining money from individuals while impersonating a United States Army officer, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 912 . On three separate occasions, Chow represented himself as a Lieutenant Colonel on staff of the Judge Advocate General to: (1) Mary Sharak, who lent him $7,000 (Count I); (2) Howard Long, who paid Chow approximately $4,200 for legal services that were never rendered (Count…