United States of America v. Scott H. Summerhays

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
SCOTT H. SUMMERHAYS,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 15-10267
D.C. No. 3:12-cr-00022-LRH
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Larry R. Hicks, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 26, 2016**
Before: SCHROEDER, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Scott H. Summerhays appeals from the district court’s judgment and
challenges his guilty-plea conviction and aggregate 234-month sentence for wire
fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343; money laundering, in violation of 18
U.S.C. § 1957; and identity theft and aggravated identity theft, in violation of 18
FILED
AUG 02 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 2 --

U.S.C. §§ 1028(a)(7) and 1028A. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291,
and we affirm.
Summerhays, who chose to represent himself, contends that he received
ineffective assistance from his standby counsel. Assuming without deciding that
Summerhays can assert an ineffective assistance claim against his standby counsel,
we decline to consider this claim on direct appeal. See United States v. Rahman,
642 F.3d 1257, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 2011) (this court reviews ineffective assistance
claims on direct appeal only where the record is sufficiently developed or
inadequate representation is obvious).
Summerhays next contends that the 234-month sentence is substantively
unreasonable. The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing
Summerhay’s sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The
low-end Guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a) factors and the totality of the circumstances, including the sophistication
of Summerhays’s scheme and the loss amount. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51.
AFFIRMED.
15-10267 2

-- 2 of 2 --