United States of America v. Lloyd H. Gardley

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
LLOYD H. GARDLEY,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 13-10685
D.C. No. 2:10-cr-00236-GMN-
PAL-1
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Gloria M. Navarro, Chief District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 12, 2014 **
Before: HUG, FARRIS, and CANBY, Circuit Judges.
Lloyd H. Gardley appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges
the 135-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea convictions for bank
fraud and two counts of mail fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1341, and
FILED
MAR 23 2015
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 3 --

conspiracy to commit bank fraud, mail fraud, and wire fraud, in violation of 18
U.S.C. § 1349. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Gardley contends that the district court procedurally erred at sentencing by
not explicitly addressing his argument that he should receive only a 30-month
sentence because he had health problems resulting in a short life expectancy.
Because Gardley did not object on these grounds below, we review for plain error.
See United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2010);
United States v. Dallman, 533 F.3d 755, 761-62 (9th Cir. 2008). The record shows
that the district court was aware of Gardley’s arguments and the relevant evidence,
that the court noted that it had reviewed the parties’ submissions and had heard the
statements by counsel and the defendant, and that the court provided numerous
reasons for the sentence, which was at the bottom of the Guidelines range. Thus,
Gardley has not shown that the district court committed an error that was plain and
has not shown that there is a reasonable probability that the sentence would have
been different absent the alleged error. See Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338,
356-59 (2007); United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 995 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc);
United States v. Carter, 560 F.3d 1107, 1117-19 (9th Cir. 2009).
Gardley also contends that the 135-month sentence is substantively
unreasonable given his age, health, and criminal history. The sentence is not
2

-- 2 of 3 --

substantively unreasonable in light of not only the specific facts identified by
Gardley, but the totality of the circumstances and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors,
such as the need to avoid sentencing disparities and provide deterrence, and the
seriousness of the offense, including Gardley’s sustained, detailed, and
sophisticated criminal conduct. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007).
To the extent Gardley challenges some of the inferences the district court drew
from the facts, we decline to second-guess the district court. Id. at 51-52
(recognizing that the sentencing judge is in a superior position to find facts and
judge their import under § 3553(a) because the judge sees and hears the evidence,
makes credibility determinations, has full knowledge of the facts, and gains
insights not conveyed by the record).
AFFIRMED.
3

-- 3 of 3 --