United States v. Princeton Jamaal Perry

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION FEB 12 2016 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 15-30094

Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 2:13-cr-00008-WFN-32

v. MEMORANDUM* PRINCETON JAMAAL LEE PERRY,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington Wm. Fremming Nielsen, Senior District Judge, Presiding

Submitted February 5, 2016** Seattle, Washington

Before: O’SCANNLAIN and GOULD, Circuit Judges and BURNS,*** District Judge.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). *** The Honorable Larry A. Burns, District Judge for the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, sitting by designation.  Princeton Perry appeals his sentence imposed for conspiring to distribute

oxycodone-based pills in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846 and 841(a)(1). We have

jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 3742 and 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

The district court did not err by including drugs attributable to Inaliel Lisbey

in calculating Perry’s base offense level. “[I]n the case of a jointly undertaken

criminal activity . . . all reasonably foreseeable acts and omissions of others in

furtherance of the jointly undertaken criminal activity” shall be factored in when

calculating a defendant’s offense level. U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3(a)(1)(B) (2014). The

district judge reasonably concluded that Perry and Lisbey were working together

during the relevant period of the conspiracy, and that therefore the drugs

attributable to Lisbey were within the scope of their jointly undertaken criminal

activity and reasonably foreseeable to Perry. See United States v. Treadwell, 593

F.3d 990, 1004 (9th Cir. 2010).

AFFIRMED.