Durant
United States v. Durant
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM ***
Anthony Durant, Sharman Walker, Kirk Kuykendoll, and Henry Perrin appeal their convictions and sentences for conspiracy ( 18 U.S.C. § 371 ), maü fraud ( 18 U.S.C. § 1341 ), wire fraud ( 18 U.S.C. § 1343 ), securities fraud (15 U.S.C. § 77q(a)), and perjury ( 18 U.S.C. § 1621 ), arising from their activities in a telemarketing scheme for a purported manufacturer of latex products, Assured International. None of their arguments on appeal has merit. Thus, we affirm the district court.
*58 I Standards of Review
Evidentiary rulings are reviewed for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Leon-Reyes, 177 F.3d 816, 819 (9th Cir. 1999).
“We review de novo the district court’s interpretation of the Sentencing Guidelines.” United States v. Pirello, 255 F.3d 728, 731 (2001). The district court’s factual findings pertaining to sentencing are reviewed for clear error. Id. The district court’s application of the Guidelines to the facts of a particular case is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Id.
Standards of review pertaining to only one defendant are included within the analysis of discrete issues below.