United States of America v. Casey Luczak

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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.
CASEY LUCZAK,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 10-10279
D.C. No. 2:08-cr-00161-PMP
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Philip M. Pro, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 15, 2011**
Before: CANBY, FERNANDEZ, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Casey Luczak appeals from the 121-month sentence imposed following his
guilty-plea conviction for wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343, and making
a false statement, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001. We have jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
FILED
FEB 22 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

10-10279 2
Luczak contends that trial counsel was ineffective. As a general rule, this
court does not review claims of ineffective assistance of counsel on direct appeal.
See United States v. Benford, 574 F.3d 1228, 1231 (9th Cir. 2009). Luczak has not
demonstrated that this is an “unusual case” justifying consideration of this
contention on direct appeal. See id.
Luczak also contends that the district court erred by applying a two-level
enhancement for use of “sophisticated means” pursuant to U.S.S.G.
§ 2B1.1(b)(8)(C) (2002). The district court did not err because Luczak’s scheme
involved “especially complex or especially intricate offense conduct” in its
“execution or concealment.” U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1 app. n.6(B) (2002).
Luczak further contends that the district court failed to consider his
gambling addiction when it imposed his sentence and that his sentence is
substantively unreasonable. The record reflects that the district court did not
procedurally err, see United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 991-93 (9th Cir. 2008)
(en banc), and that, under the totality of the circumstances, the sentence at the
bottom of the guidelines range is substantively reasonable. See Gall v. United
States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007); see also Carty, 520 F.3d at 993.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --