Filed: May 21, 2014
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAY 21 2014 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 13-30220 Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 2:13-cr-00015-RAJ v. MEMORANDUM* XEN HOC LU, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington Richard A. Jones, District Judge, Presiding Submitted May 13, 2014** Before: CLIFTON, BEA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges. Xen Hoc Lu appeals from
Summary: FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAY 21 2014 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 13-30220 Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 2:13-cr-00015-RAJ v. MEMORANDUM* XEN HOC LU, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington Richard A. Jones, District Judge, Presiding Submitted May 13, 2014** Before: CLIFTON, BEA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges. Xen Hoc Lu appeals from ..
More
FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAY 21 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 13-30220
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 2:13-cr-00015-RAJ
v.
MEMORANDUM*
XEN HOC LU,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
Richard A. Jones, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 13, 2014**
Before: CLIFTON, BEA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Xen Hoc Lu appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the
order of restitution imposed as part of his sentence following his guilty-plea
conviction for wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343. We have jurisdiction
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Lu contends that the district court’s restitution order was not based on
sufficient, reliable evidence regarding actual loss to the victim. We review an
order of restitution for abuse of discretion, and the factual findings supporting the
order for clear error. See United States v. Waknine,
543 F.3d 546, 555 (9th Cir.
2008).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by relying on Lu’s admissions,
the investigating agent’s testimony, and the records of Lu’s fraudulent transactions
with undercover agents to calculate the restitution amount. See
id. at 557
(evidence used to calculate restitution must possess “sufficient indicia of reliability
to support its probable accuracy” (internal quotations omitted)). Moreover, the
district court did not clearly err in its restitution calculation because it is supported
by this evidence. See
id. (“In light of the remedial purposes underlying the
[Mandatory Victims Restitution Act], our precedent grants district courts a degree
of flexibility in accounting for a victim’s complete losses.” (internal quotations
omitted)).
AFFIRMED.
2 13-30220