United States of America v. Curtis Tyrone Wudtee, a.k.a. John Doe

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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.
CURTIS TYRONE WUDTEE, a.k.a. John
Doe,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 12-30054
D.C. No. 2:11-cr-00112-MJP
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
Marsha J. Pechman, Chief Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 14, 2013**
Before: LEAVY, THOMAS, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Curtis Tyrone Wudtee appeals from the district court’s judgment and
challenges his 57-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for
social security number misuse, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 408(a)(7)(B);
FILED
MAY 20 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

12-30054 2
aggravated identity theft, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1028A; and being a felon in
possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Wudtee first contends that his due process rights were violated by the district
court’s use of purportedly unreliable information in determining his sentence.
Wudtee has proffered no evidence indicating that the challenged information was
materially false or unreliable so as to constitute a due process violation. See
United States v. Kimball, 975 F.2d 563, 567 (9th Cir. 1992). Moreover, the record
reflects that the district court did not rely on the disputed information in fashioning
Wudtee’s sentence.
Wudtee next contends that the district court failed to comply with Federal
Rule of Criminal Procedure 32(i)(3)(B) by failing to resolve factual disputes or to
determine that the disputed facts would not affect the sentencing. We review de
novo, see United States v. Saeteurn, 504 F.3d 1175, 1178 (9th Cir. 2007), and find
no Rule 32 violation. See United States v. Petri, No. 11-30337, 2013 WL
1490604, at *7 (9th Cir. Apr. 12, 2013) (“Rule 32 did not require the district court
to expressly address those assertions that were not factual objections to the
presentence report when it pronounced [defendant’s] sentence.”).
Wudtee last contends that the cumulative error requires reversal. Because

-- 2 of 3 --

12-30054 3
there are no potential errors, reversal for cumulative error is not warranted. See
United States v. Anekwu, 695 F.3d 967, 988 (9th Cir. 2012).
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --