United States of America v. Justine Lawrenz Lingatong, a.k.a. Justine Lawrenz San M Lingatong, a.k.a. Turbo

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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.
JUSTINE LAWRENZ LINGATONG,
a.k.a. Justine Lawrenz San M Lingatong,
a.k.a. Turbo,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 12-30181
D.C. No. 1:11-cr-00119-EJL
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Idaho
Edward J. Lodge, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 19, 2012**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Justine Lawrenz Lingatong appeals from the district court’s judgment and
challenges the 60-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for
FILED
DEC 31 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

12-30181 2
bank fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1344; and aggravated identity theft, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1028A. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and
we affirm.
The government contends that this appeal should be dismissed because it is
moot and because it is barred by the appeal waiver set forth in Lingatong’s plea
agreement. Because we cannot ascertain from the record whether any effective
relief can be granted, we deny the government’s request to dismiss the appeal as
moot. See Forest Guardians v. Johanns, 450 F.3d 455, 461 (9th Cir. 2006). We
also decline to dismiss the appeal on the basis of the appeal waiver and instead
affirm on the merits. See United States v. Jacobo Castillo, 496 F.3d 947, 957 (9th
Cir. 2007) (en banc).
Lingatong contends that the district court erred in concluding that 18 U.S.C.
§ 1028A required that his federal sentence for aggravated identity theft be imposed
consecutively to, rather than concurrently with, his state prison term. We review
issues of statutory interpretation de novo. See United States v. Begay, 622 F.3d
1187, 1193 (9th Cir. 2010). Contrary to Lingatong’s contention, section 1028A
required the court to run his sentence consecutively. See 18 U.S.C. § 1028A;
United States v. Gonzalez, 520 U.S. 1, 5 (1997).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --