Defendant's mail fraud sentence is affirmed where the District Court correctly held that it was precluded from considering evidence of Defendant's post-sentencing rehabilitation in determining whether it would have imposed the same sentence had it known the Sentencing Guidelines were advisory. (Amended opinion)
Argued and Submitted February 3, 2009
Filed May 28, 2009
Amended June 23, 2009
Before: Harry Pregerson, Susan P. Graber, and Kim McLane Wardlaw, Circuit Judges.
Opinion by Judge Wardlaw