NOT FOR PUBLICATION
`
`UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
`
`FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
`
`UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
`
` Plaintiff - Appellee,
`
` v.
`
`GERRY ALEN ALBUS,
`
` Defendant - Appellant.
` No. 24-5931
`D.C. No.
`9:24-cr-00018-DWM-1
`
`MEMORANDUM*
`
`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.
`FILED
`
`MAY 1 2025
`
`MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
`U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 2 24-5931
`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.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`