Abolahrar

MEMORANDUM **

Reza Abolahrar and Mohammadali Abolahrar (“Appellants”) appeal their sentences following their jury convictions. The parties are familiar with the facts and procedure and we repeat them here only as necessary.

First, Appellants argue that the Sentencing Guidelines remain “mandatory and binding” in the wake of United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 , 125 S.Ct. 738 , 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), and that the district court violated their Sixth Amendment rights by imposing sentences above the Guidelines range. Appellants’ Booker claim is belied by Booker itself. See Booker, 543 U.S. at 264 , 125 S.Ct. 738 ; see also United States v. Cardenas-Juarez, 469 F.3d 1331, 1333 (9th Cir.2006).

Second, Appellants argue that the district court violated their Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights when it increased their sentences for “uncharged conspiracies,” namely for billing for medications that were not prescribed or had been “discontinued” for a particular patient. Because Appellants failed to raise this issue in the district court, we review for plain error. United States v. Cotton, 535 U.S. 625, 629-32 , 122 S.Ct. 1781 , 152 L.Ed.2d 860 (2002). There were no uncharged conspiracies…