
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kenneth Wayne JOHNSON, M.D., Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 16-50028
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted August 10, 2017  Pasadena, California
    Filed August 15, 2017
    L. Ashley Aull, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Benjamin Robert Barron, DOJ—Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, Jennifer Leigh Williams, Cohen Williams Williams LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee
    
      Devin Burstein, Attorney, Devin Bur-stein, Esq., San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant
    Before: CALLAHAN and OWENS, Circuit Judges, and GILLIAM, District Judge.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
    
      
       The Honorable Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr., United States District Judge for the Northern District of California, sitting by designation.
    
   MEMORANDUM

Kenneth Wayne Johnson, M.D., appeals from his jury conviction and 108-month sentence for his participation in a multimillion dollar health care fraud scheme. As the parties are familiar with the facts, we do not recount them here. We affirm in part, vacate in part, and remand for resentencing.

The district court was “well within its discretion” in “deferring consideration of [Johnson’s] ineffective assistance claim to collateral review, when a complete record would be available.” United States v. Steele, 733 F.3d 894, 895, 899 (9th Cir. 2013).

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, the jury reasonably could have found that the Medicare and Medi-Cal cards qualified as “identification documents” under 18 U.S.C. § 1028. See 18 U.S.C. § 1028(d)(3) (defining “identification document”); see also Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979). Moreover, Johnson’s conviction also rested on possession of driver’s licenses, which qualify as “identification documents.” 18 U.S.C. § 1028(d)(3).

Regarding sentencing, the district court did not plainly err in applying a sophisticated means enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2B.1(b)(10)(C). Further, as Johnson concedes in his reply brief, the district court also did not plainly err in applying a number of victims enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2B.1(b)(2)(A).

However, as with Johnson’s co-defendant, “the record does not show ... why the district court applied a sentence enhancement for unlawful use or possession of an authentication feature under U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(11)(A)(ii).” United States v. Ovsepian, 674 Fed.Appx. 712, 713 (9th Cir. Jan. 9, 2017). “We therefore vacate the sentence and remand for resen-tencing so the district court can explain why it applied this enhancement and address whether such application constituted impermissible double counting.” Id.

AFFIRMED in part, VACATED in part, and REMANDED. 
      
      
         This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
     
      
      . We grant both Johnson’s Unopposed Motion for Judicial Notice of Related Court Records (Dkt. No. 35) and the Government's Unopposed Request for Judicial Notice (Dkt. No. 43).
     