O'Neill

MEMORANDUM *

We affirm the 24-month sentence the district court imposed on Thomas O’Neill after he pleaded guilty to one count each of wire and securities fraud. See 18 U.S.C. § 1343 ; 15 U.S.C. §§ 78j(b) & 78ff; 17 C.F.R. § 240 .10b-5. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 18 U.S.C. § 3742 (a).

*579 We review O’Neill’s ultimate sentence for reasonableness in light of the factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3558 (a). See United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 , 125 S.Ct. 738, 765-66 , 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005). For a sentence to be reasonable, the district court must first accurately calculate an advisory sentence range under the Sentencing Guidelines. 1 See United States v. Cantrell, 433 F.3d 1269,1279-81 (9th Cir.2006). We review the district court’s calculation of the advisory guidelines sentence by reviewing its “interpretation of the Sentencing Guidelines de novo, [its] application of the Sentencing Guidelines to the facts of this case for abuse of discretion, and [its] factual findings for clear error.” United States v. Kimbrew, 406 F.3d 1149, 1151 (9th Cir. 2005).

The district court properly enhanced O’Neill’s offense level under U.S.S.G. § 2Fl.l(b)(l)(I) for infliction of loss…