Khan

concurring.

I concur because I read our recent cases to dictate the result in this one. United States v. Zavala, 443 F.3d 1165, 1171 (9th Cir.2006) (per curiam). However, left to my own devices, I would say that the Guidelines range correctly calculated by the district judge is the presumptively reasonable sentence. I am not persuaded that the sentence actually arrived at here, after consideration of the § 3553(a) factors, is also reasonable. The Khans’ lack of criminal history is fully accounted for in the Guidelines analysis, and nothing remarkable appears about it. Indeed, if anything, it seems to me that while they had no criminal record, their civil record of liability for a different fraudulent scheme—the same sort of conduct for which they stand convicted in this case— points in the other direction. Neither does their age seem pertinent; at least to me, 53, their approximate age when committing the crimes, is not “advanced.” Even though time passed before sentencing, being 60-something isn’t particularly “advanced,” either. While both unquestionably have health issues, nothing in the record reflects a medical concern about the effect of incarceration or even the need for…

concurring in part and dissenting in part.

I dissent because I do not believe the sentence was reasonable even under United States v. Zavala, 443 F.3d 1165 (9th Cir.2006) (per curiam). In my view, as Judge Rymer’s concurrence explains, the reasons given by the district court do not justify the degree of variance here. See, e.g., United States v. Menyweather, 447 F.3d 625 (9th Cir.2006) (as amended). I would, therefore, reverse across the board.

MEMORANDUM *

The United States appeals the sentences imposed upon Sultan Warris Khan and Asif Mohammad Khan following their conviction by guilty plea to conspiracy, filing false quarterly reports with the Securities and Exchange Commission, wire fraud and deprivation of honest services, money laundering conspiracy, and concealment money laundering. 1 The government challenges the district court’s imposition of sentences of twenty-four months imprisonment and fines in lieu of restitution. We review for reasonableness, United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 264 , 125 S.Ct. 738 , 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005); United States v. Plouffe, 445 F.3d 1126, 1131 (9th Cir.2006) (as amended), and affirm in part and remand in part.

*702 The government argues that the district court failed to give sufficient weight to the Sentencing Guidelines. However, the court properly calculated a Guidelines range and used the range as a starting point. As we have subsequently indicated, the Guidelines are not entitled to greater weight than the other 18 U.S.C. § 3553 (a) factors. United States v. Zavala, 443 F.3d 1165, 1171 (9th Cir.2006) (per curiam). The district court gave reasons for arriving at its…