5 6 United States of America v. Chris Young Yoo, a.k.a. Chris Yoo

NOT FOR PUBLICATION 1
2
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 3
4
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT 5
6
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
CHRIS YOUNG YOO, a.k.a. Chris Yoo,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 17-30168
D.C. No. 2:17-cr-00075-TSZ
MEMORANDUM*
7
Appeal from the United States District Court 8
for the Western District of Washington 9
Thomas S. Zilly, District Judge, Presiding 10
11
Submitted August 15, 2018**
12
13
Before: FARRIS, BYBEE, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges. 14
15
Chris Young Yoo appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges 16
the 108-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for one count 17
of wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343, and one count of making a false 18
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
AUG 21 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 17-30168
statement to the United States, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001. We have 1
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we vacate and remand for resentencing. 2
Yoo contends that the district court violated the Ex Post Facto Clause by 3
applying an amended version of the Sentencing Guidelines that did not go into 4
effect until after his offenses of conviction were complete. The government 5
concedes that we must vacate Yoo’s sentence and remand for resentencing. 6
Reviewing de novo, see United States v. Forrester, 616 F.3d 929, 934 (9th Cir. 7
2010), we agree. 8
The district court improperly concluded that the “the last date of the offense 9
of conviction” occurred after November 1, 2015. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.11 cmt. n.2. 10
The wire fraud offense was “complete when the . . . wire [was] used”—on April 11
16, 2015. United States v. Blitz, 151 F.3d 1002, 1011 (9th Cir. 1998). Yoo’s 12
conduct after November 2015—while relevant to the sentencing range within a 13
particular version of the Guidelines—is immaterial to which version applies for ex 14
post facto purposes. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.11 cmt. n.2; Forrester, 616 F.3d at 946- 15
48. Because the district court applied a version of the Guidelines that resulted in a 16
higher sentencing range than the version of the Guidelines that applied on the date 17
Yoo’s offenses of conviction were complete, we must vacate and remand for 18
resentencing. See Peugh v. United States, 569 U.S. 530, 544 (2013); United States 19
v. Thomsen, 830 F.3d 1049, 1070-71 (9th Cir. 2016). On remand, the district court 20

-- 2 of 3 --

3 17-30168
shall apply the 2014 Guidelines. 1
VACATED and REMANDED for resentencing. 2

-- 3 of 3 --