Dentman

MEMORANDUM **

Johnnie Dentman appeals his 24-month sentence for trafficking in and production of counterfeit access devices in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1029 (a)(1), and fraudulent trafficking in and possession of device-making equipment in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1029 (a)(4). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 18 U.S.C. § 3742 , and we affirm.

Dentman contends that the district court erred by ruling that credit card account numbers found on a laptop in Dentman’s garage constitute relevant conduct under § IB 1.3(a)(2) of the United States Sentencing Guidelines and by including the actual fraudulent losses to those accounts in the total loss for sentencing. We review for clear error the district court’s determination whether uncharged conduct is relevant for sentencing purposes under § lB1.3(a)(2). United States v. Hahn, 960 F.2d 903, 907 (9th Cir.1992).

In determining the loss attributable to a defendant, the sentencing court must consider a defendant’s relevant conduct. U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual (“U.S.S.G.”) § 1B1.3 (2001). Extraneous acts must be considered in the calculation of loss for groupable offenses like Dent-man’s if they “were part of the…