Flowers

MEMORANDUM **

We consider two factors on appeal in reviewing a criminal defendant’s sentence: whether the district court committed any significant procedural error and whether the overall sentence was substantively reasonable. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992-93 (9th Cir.2008). Because the district court neither committed any significant procedural error nor imposed a substantively unreasonable sentence, the district court did not abuse its discretion in fashioning Dorothy Flowers’s sentence. See id.

The district court sentenced Flowers to six months home incarceration, six months detention in a community center, and three years supervised release for her role in a conspiracy to defraud the Internal Revenue Service. See 18 U.S.C. § 371 . Although the district court suggested that the use of technical equipment might satisfy a sophisticated concealment enhance *450 ment under U.S.S.G. § 2T1.1, the district court, in declining to apply the two-level enhancement, relied on Flowers’s limited education, her overall lack of knowledge of the intricacies of the business, and her tendency to follow instructions without question. We cannot say in light of this isolated…