Ross

MEMORANDUM *

Winston George Ross appeals his conviction and sentence for operating a pyramid scheme. We affirm.

Ross argues that the district court abused its discretion in denying his application for a Fed.R.Crim.P. 17(b) sub *162 poena. Assuming, without deciding, that the district court erred, any error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Mis-chler’s testimony was inculpatory and could not have supported a good faith defense. It showed that Ross began soliciting investments before meeting Mischler and continued to do so after he knew Mischler had lost $500,000.

The district court’s sentence is procedurally sound. “[W]hen a defendant’s arguments are straightforward and uncomplicated, the district court does not abuse its discretion when it listens to the defendant’s arguments and then simply [finds those] circumstances insufficient to warrant a sentence lower than the guidelines range.” United States v. Stoterau, 524 F.3d 988, 999 (9th Cir.2008) (internal quotation marks omitted). The within-Guidelines sentence is also substantively reasonable. “We recognize that a Guidelines sentence will usually be reasonable.... [W]hen the judge’s discretionary decision accords with…