United States v. Albus

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 1 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 24-5931 D.C. No. Plaintiff - Appellee, 9:24-cr-00018-DWM-1 v. MEMORANDUM* GERRY ALEN ALBUS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Montana Donald W. Molloy, District Judge, Presiding Submitted April 22, 2025** Before: GRABER, H.A. THOMAS, and JOHNSTONE, Circuit Judges. Gerry Alen Albus appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 36-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for theft of government money in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 641.1 We have jurisdiction under * 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). 1 Albus does not challenge his conviction or sentence for Social Security fraud through concealment. 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. Albus contends the 36-month sentence is unreasonable because it is three times longer than the sentence he received for the Social Security fraud offense. In his view, the 12-month sentence imposed for the fraud offense adequately captured the deception and harm caused by both offenses. The district court did not abuse its discretion. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). Albus’s theft of government funds intended for his mother was largely separate conduct from his own fraudulent reports to the Social Security Administration. The 36-month sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors and the totality of the circumstances, including Albus’s extensive history of fraud and theft and the need for general and specific deterrence. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51; United States v. Gutierrez-Sanchez, 587 F.3d 904, 908 (9th Cir. 2009) (“The weight to be given the various factors in a particular case is for the discretion of the district court.”). AFFIRMED. 2 24-5931