Defendant's sentence for possessing unauthorized access devices is affirmed where: 1) nothing in either the plain language of 18 U.S.C. section 1029 or the case law required that an "access device" contain information identifying a particular person as its owner; and 2) the district court sufficiently explained that the Guidelines did not account for defendant's particular type of recidivism.
Argued and Submitted September 14, 2009
Filed December 1, 2009
Lawrence G. Brown and Matthew D. Segal, Office of the United States Attorney, Sacramento, CA