United States of America v. Javier Juanchi

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JAVIER JUANCHI,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 14-50045
D.C. No. 2:10-cr-01061-SJO-2
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
S. James Otero, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted October 20, 2015
Pasadena, California
Before: RAWLINSON and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges and BOULWARE,**
District Judge.
FILED
NOV 05 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
** The Honorable Richard F. Boulware, District Judge for the U.S.
District Court for the District of Nevada, sitting by designation.

-- 1 of 3 --

Javier Juanchi appeals his 135-month sentence imposed by the district court
after he pled guilty to two counts of mail fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1341.
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
1. Juanchi’s first claim is that he received ineffective assistance of counsel
because his defense counsel failed to investigate the loss amount applicable under
U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(1) prior to Juanchi’s first sentencing hearing and then agreed
to continue his sentencing in spite of the government’s statement that, if the
hearing was continued, it would seek to present evidence that would significantly
increase the loss amount. We decline to address this claim on direct appeal, as the
record is insufficiently developed and it is not obvious that Juanchi was denied his
Sixth Amendment right to counsel. See United States v. Liu, 731 F.3d 982, 995
(9th Cir. 2013) (“As a general rule, we do not review challenges to the
effectiveness of defense counsel on direct appeal.”).
2. Second, Juanchi argues that the district court erred in imposing a two-
level sentencing enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(11)(C)(i) for the
unauthorized transfer or use of one means of identification to produce another. A
district court’s application of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines is reviewed for
abuse of discretion. United States v. Christensen, 732 F.3d 1094, 1100 (9th Cir.
2013). Here, Juanchi obtained straw borrowers’ consent to use their identifying
2

-- 2 of 3 --

information by representing that they would be “lending their credit” to distressed
homeowners by co-signing on refinancing loan applications, when in fact the
identifying information was used to purchase homeowners’ properties. The district
court therefore did not abuse its discretion in finding that Juanchi’s use of the straw
borrowers’ identifying information was unauthorized and in applying the two-level
enhancement under Section 2B1.1(b)(11)(C)(i) of the Guidelines, because Juanchi
obtained the straw borrowers’ identifying information through misrepresentations
as to how he would use it.
AFFIRMED.
3

-- 3 of 3 --