Opinion
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2). Accordingly, appellant's request for addition time in order to file a request for oral argument is denied.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION. (See Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 36-3)
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Maxine M. Chesney, District Judge, Presiding.
Before BROWNING, KOZINSKI, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
William Bender appeals his four-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for using a false writing and document, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 18 U.S.C. § 3742, and we affirm.
Bender contends the district court erred by imposing a two-level enhancement pursuant to U.S. S.G. § 2F1.1(b)(2)(A) (2000) for more than minimal planning. We review for clear error, United States v. Lindholm, 24 F.3d 1078, 1086 (9th Cir.1994),
Page 922.
and conclude that this contention lacks merit.
If the offense involved more than minimal planning, then the defendant's offense level is increased by two levels. § 2F1.1(b)(2)(A) (2000). Our review of the record also supports a finding of conduct demonstrating more planning than is typical for the commission of the offense. See § 1B.1 n. 1(f) (2000).
Accordingly, the district court did not clearly err. See Lindholm, 24 F.3d at 1086-87.
AFFIRMED.