Under a federal statute nearly identical to our own, the Ninth Circuit determined whether a gift card was an “access device.”United States v. Truong , 587 F.3d 1049, 1051–52 (9th Cir. 2009). 18 U.S.C. § 1029(e)(1) and RCW 9A.56.010(1) are identical in the portions relevant to this case.

• United States v. Karapetian , 473 F. App'x 603 (9th Cir. 2012), affirmed the defendant's sentence, which was based on the district court's $500-per-card loss calculation.• United States v. Truong , 587 F.3d 1049, 1051–52 (9th Cir. 2009) (per curiam), rejected the defendant's argument that gift cards did not qualify as access devices, and thus affirmed the district court's sentence, which was based on the per-card multiplier.• United States v. Camper , 337 F. App'x 631, 632–33 (9th Cir. 2009), relied on Yellowe to conclude that the "district court correctly calculated the total loss by applying the Sentencing Guidelines' $500 presumed loss to each of the 1,531 stolen credit cards."

Critically, Riccardi admitted in her plea agreement that the gift cards she stole were "unauthorized access devices" under § 1029(e). Cf. United States v. Truong , 587 F.3d 1049, 1051–52 (9th Cir. 2009) (per curiam). So we need not consider that issue.

A review of the record demonstrates that the district court did not procedurally err and the sentence is not substantively unreasonable in light of the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and the totality of the circumstances. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007); see also United States v. Truong, 587 F.3d 1049, 1052 (9th Cir. 2009) (per curiam) (affirming an above-Guidelines sentence where the district court "sufficiently explained that the Guidelines did not account for [defendant's] particular type of recidivism"). AFFIRMED.

In December 2009, the Ninth Circuit, while noting the state charges and sentence, affirmed this court's sentence. United States v. Truong, 587 F.3d 1049 (9th Cir. 2009). On October 1, 2015, the Bureau of Prisons sent a letter to this court stating Truong had requested that his federal sentence be served concurrently with his state sentence, setting forth the Bureau's preference that the federal sentencing court state its position.

On December 6, 2006, an information charging Petitioner with Counterfeit of Unauthorized Access Devices, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1029(a)(3), was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California. Information, United States v. Truong, No. 2:06-cr-00487-KJM (E.D. Cal. Dec. 6, 2006), ECF No. 3. On December 13, 2006, California state authorities released Petitioner to the custody of the United States pursuant to a writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum. (ECF No. 12-1 at 1, 7). Petitioner pleaded guilty to the information and was sentenced to an imprisonment term of 120 months on October 14, 2008. (ECF No. 12-1 at 8-9). The Ninth Circuit affirmed Petitioner's sentence. United States v. Truong, 587 F.3d 1049 (9th Cir. 2009). The Court may take judicial notice of its own records in other cases.