Filed: Aug. 19, 2003
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit F I L E D IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT August 19, 2003 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk No. 02-10888 Conference Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus PETER ADE NGUFOR, Defendant-Appellant. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:01-CR-53-1-A - Before JONES, WIENER, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Peter Ngufor appeals the district court’
Summary: United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit F I L E D IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT August 19, 2003 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk No. 02-10888 Conference Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus PETER ADE NGUFOR, Defendant-Appellant. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:01-CR-53-1-A - Before JONES, WIENER, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Peter Ngufor appeals the district court’s..
More
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT August 19, 2003
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 02-10888
Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
PETER ADE NGUFOR,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:01-CR-53-1-A
--------------------
Before JONES, WIENER, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Peter Ngufor appeals the district court’s determination of
the loss amount involved in his embezzlement of United States
mail offense to which he pleaded guilty. Based upon testimony at
the sentencing hearing from two postal inspectors, the district
court determined that the loss amount was between $200,000 and
$400,000, thus warranting an offense level increase of 12 under
U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(1)(G) as opposed to the $6,500 loss amount
stated in the presentence report. Ngufor argues that the
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined
that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent
except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.
R. 47.5.4.
No. 02-10888
-2-
Government did not sufficiently prove that the loss amount
involved in his offense was over $200,000.
The calculation of a loss amount involved in an offense is a
factual finding reviewed for clear error. United States v.
Peterson,
101 F.3d 375, 384 (5th Cir. 1996); United States v.
Ismoila,
100 F.3d 380, 396 (5th Cir. 1996). The loss amount need
not be determined with precision, and the district court need
make only a reasonable estimate of the loss, based upon the
available information.
Ismoila, 100 F.3d at 396. The district
court’s determination of the loss was supported by the record,
and there was no clear error. Ngufor’s sentence is AFFIRMED.