From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Ramirez

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Oct 18, 2006
203 F. App'x 144 (9th Cir. 2006)

Opinion

Submitted Oct. 16, 2006.

This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION. (See Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 36-3)

Becky S. Walker, Esq., Ellyn M. Lindsay, Esq., USLA-Office of the U.S. Attorney Criminal Division, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Roger S. Hanson, Esq., Law Offices of Roger S. Hanson, Santa Ana, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.


Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Alicemarie H. Stotler, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CR-99-00158-AHS.

Before: T.G. NELSON, W. FLETCHER and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Louis Ramirez, III, appeals from the restitution order imposed following his conviction for mail and wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 1341, 1343 and 2326. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Ramirez contends that the district court violated his Sixth Amendment rights by ordering restitution in an amount that exceeded what was supported by the jury's verdict. This contention is foreclosed by United States v. Bussell, 414 F.3d 1048, 1060 (9th Cir.2005) (restitution orders are unaffected by the Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005)).

AFFIRMED.


Summaries of

United States v. Ramirez

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Oct 18, 2006
203 F. App'x 144 (9th Cir. 2006)
Case details for

United States v. Ramirez

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Louis RAMIREZ, III, aka…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Oct 18, 2006

Citations

203 F. App'x 144 (9th Cir. 2006)