Booth

MEMORANDUM **

For the third time, Defendant/Appellant Michael David Booth appeals from the sentence imposed following his conviction by a jury in the Eastern District of Washington of over eighty counts of wire fraud and money laundering. The case was last before us in October 2004, when we remanded the case to the district court “for such further proceedings as the district court deem[ed] appropriate” in light of the Supreme Court’s then-pending decision in United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 , 125 S.Ct. 738 , 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005). On remand, the district court conducted a re-sentencing hearing and again imposed a sentence of 162 months. This appeal ensued.

Booth first argues that his sentence is unreasonable because the district court was determined to re-impose a 162-month sentence and because the court did not properly consider the sentencing factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553 (a). We are unpersuaded. Booth is correct that, post- Booker, a district court “must consider the factors provided in 18 U.S.C. § 3553 (a) in fashioning the appropriate sentence for the individual defendant.” United States v. Ameline, 409 F.3d 1073, 1092 (9th Cir. 2005). But the district court…