09-1415-cr United States v. Lee Cho UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT . CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT ’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT , A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL . At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of New York, on the 5th day of February, two thousand ten. PRESENT: RALPH K. WINTER, JOHN M. WALKER, JR., ROSEMARY S. POOLER, Circuit Judges. -------------------------------------------X UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appellee, - v. - No. 09-1415-cr SUN LEE CHO, Defendant-Appellant. -------------------------------------------X APPEARING FOR LABE M. RICHMAN, New York, NY. DEFENDANT-APPELLANT: APPEARING FOR APPELLEE: JUSTIN ANDERSON, Assistant United States Attorney, Of Counsel (Preet Bharara, United States Attorney, Katherine Polk Failla, Assistant United States Attorney, Of Counsel, on the brief), Southern District of New York, New York, NY. Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Sullivan, J.). ON CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court be and hereby is AFFIRMED. Appellant Cho appeals from a judgment of conviction following her plea of guilty to one count of bank fraud, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1344. Her sole challenge is to the district court’s order of restitution in the amount of $49,600. Cho attempted to make restitution in full prior to the entry of the district court’s judgment and, based on her belief that she was successful, sought for the judgment to be entered without an order of restitution. The district court found that restitution was not completed prior to entry of the judgment and denied Cho’s request. The district court also denied a subsequent request by Cho that “a new judgment be issued without the restitution order.” For substantially the reasons relied upon by the district court, the district court’s judgment of conviction and subsequent order are AFFIRMED. FOR THE COURT: Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk