United States of America v. Youzhe Piao

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
YOUZHE PIAO,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 21-10045
D.C. No. 1:19-cr-00010-RVM-1
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of the Northern Mariana Islands
Ramona V. Manglona, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 14, 2021**
Before: PAEZ, NGUYEN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Youzhe Piao appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the
two-month sentence imposed following his jury-trial conviction for conspiracy to
unlawfully produce an identification document, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 1028(a)(1), (f). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
* 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
SEP 20 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 21-10045
Piao first argues that the district court procedurally erred by basing the
sentence on the unsupported assumption that Piao caused an 11-year delay in
resolving a previous criminal charge. We review for plain error, see United States
v. Christensen, 732 F.3d 1094, 1101 (9th Cir. 2013), and conclude there was none.
Piao has not shown that the court relied on any findings that were “illogical,
implausible, or without support in the record.” See United States v. Graf, 610 F.3d
1148, 1157 (9th Cir. 2010). Moreover, because the court relied on numerous other
factors—including the circumstances of the offense, the length of time that Piao
was unlawfully present and working in the United States, and his criminal
history—Piao has not shown a reasonable probability that he would have received
a different sentence in the absence of any alleged error. See Christensen, 732 F.3d
at 1102.
Piao also contends that the two-month sentence is substantively
unreasonable because other similarly-situated defendants received significantly
shorter sentences. The district court did not abuse its discretion. See Gall v.
United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The sentence is substantively reasonable in
light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the
circumstances, including Piao’s criminal history and the need to promote respect
for the law. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --