U.S. v. Cino

Full title: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Stephen CINO…

Court: United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Jul 28, 2003

73 F. App'x 210 (9th Cir. 2003)

Opinion

73 Fed.Appx. 210 (9th Cir. 2003) UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Stephen CINO, Defendant-Appellant. No. 02-10265. D.C. No. CR-97-00082-PMP. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. July 28, 2003

Submitted July 21, 2003. ^*

* The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION. (See Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 36-3)

Defendant appealed sentence imposed following his conviction, by a jury in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada, Philip M. Pro, J., of, inter alia, interference with commerce by threat or violence. The Court of Appeals held that failure to grant a reduction in base offense level, on basis that the person being extorted was murdered, was not erroneous.

Affirmed.

Page 211.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada, Philip M. Pro, District Judge, Presiding.

Before LEAVY, HAWKINS, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM ^**

** This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

Stephen Cino appeals the 13-year sentence imposed on remand following his jury conviction for interference with commerce by threat or violence, conspiracy, money laundering, possession of counterfeit and wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1951, 1956(a)(3), 513(a), 371, and 1343. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 18 U.S. C.§ 3742(a). We review de novo the district court's interpretation of the Sentencing Guidelines, and for clear error its factual findings at sentencing. United States v. Seesing, 234 F.3d 456, 459 (9th Cir.2000). We affirm.

Cino contends that the district court erred by failing to grant a three-level reduction in his base offense level pursuant to U.S. S.G. § 2X1.1(b)(2) because the conspiracy to interfere with commerce through extortion was not completed because the person being extorted was murdered. This contention lacks merit because 18 U.S.C. § 1951 specifically criminalizes attempt or conspiracy as a substantive crime, and therefore, U.S. S.G. § 2X1.1(b)(2) does not apply. See U.S. S.G. § 2X1.1(c)(1); United States v. Hernandez-Franco, 189 F.3d 1151, 1158 (9th Cir.1999).

AFFIRMED.