United States of America v. Andy Lee Pollard

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ANDY LEE POLLARD,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 10-50544
D.C. No. 2:10-cr-00761-JFW
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
John F. Walter, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 19, 2011**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
Andy Lee Pollard appeals from his 30-month sentence following his
convictions for conspiracy and counterfeiting obligations or securities of the
United States, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 371 and 471. We have jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
FILED
DEC 22 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

10-50544 2
Pollard makes several contentions of procedural error. Specifically he
contends that the court imposed a sentence based upon a clearly erroneous fact,
that he was never employed; failed to consider his cooperation; gave too much
weight to his criminal history; and failed to consider the unwarranted sentence
disparity between Pollard and his co-defendants. These contentions are belied by
the record.
Pollard also contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable.
Specifically, he contends that the court imposed and or lengthened his sentence to
promote rehabilitation. Contrary to his contention, the record reflects that
Pollard’s sentence was not based on his rehabilitative needs. See Tapia v. United
States, 131 S. Ct. 2382, 2392 (2011). Pollard’s sentence, three month below the
Guidelines range is substantive reasonably in light of the totality of the
circumstances and the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). See United States v.
Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992-93 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc); see also United States v.
Gutierrez-Sanchez, 587 F.3d 904, 908 (9th Cir. 2009) (“The weight to be given the
various [§ 3553(a) sentencing] factors in a particular case is for the discretion of
the district court.”).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --