Summary
finding that the defendant's failure to provide a home address contributed to a finding of reasonable suspicion
Summary of this case from United States v. WilliamsOpinion
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a).
Editorial Note:
This opinion appears in the Federal reporter in a table titled "Table of Decisions Without Reported Opinions". (See FI CTA9 Rule 36-3 regarding use of unpublished opinions)
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California John G. Davies, District Judge, Presiding.
Before GOODWIN, SNEED, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Robert F. Thomas appeals his jury conviction and the sentence imposed for one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud and to transport fraudulently obtained monies in interstate commerce, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 371 and 2314, and for thirteen counts of aiding and abetting wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2 and 1343. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we vacate and remand in part, and affirm in part.
We agree with Thomas that a limited remand is necessary in order to correct the amount of restitution imposed. See Fed.R.Crim.P. 35(a). The judgment orders Thomas to pay restitution in the amount of $53,772, "as indicated on the victim list" appended to the judgment. The victim list, however, indicates that the actual loss totaled $51,172. Because it is clear from the record, particularly the transcript of the sentencing hearing, that the district court intended to impose restitution only for the amount indicated on the victim list, we vacate the restitution order and remand for appropriate correction of the judgment. See Fed.R.Crim.P. 35(a); United States v. Angelica, 951 F.2d 1007, 1009 (9th Cir.1991).
Thomas' counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that other than the error referenced above, there are no meritorious issues for review. Counsel also seeks to withdraw as counsel of record. Thomas has not filed a pro se supplemental brief.
We conclude that counsel's brief correctly characterizes the possible issues for review as without merit. Further, our independent review of the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 83 (1988), fails to disclose other arguable issues for review. Accordingly, we grant counsel's motion to withdraw and affirm Thomas' conviction.
VACATED and REMANDED in part; AFFIRMED in part.