Opinion
No. 06-50515.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a)(2).
Filed October 1, 2007.
Becky S. Walker, Esq., Ellyn M. Lindsay, Esq., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Criminal Division, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Houman Backzadeh Moghaddam, Los Angeles, CA, pro se.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Alicemarie H. Stotler, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CR-00-00162-AHS-1.
Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
MEMORANDUM
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Houman Backzadeh Moghaddam appeals from the district court's order, issued following this court's remand pursuant to United States v. Ameline, 409 F.3d 1073 (9th Cir. 2005) (en banc), that denied his request for resentencing on grounds of mootness. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
Moghaddam now challenges the restitution order. We affirm the district court's order. It is clear from the record that the advisory nature of the Guidelines could not have materially affected the restitution order, because the district court relied on statutory authority independent of the Guidelines to impose it. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 2327(a); 3663A(a)(1), (c)(1)(A)(ii), (c)(1)(A)(ii), (c)(1)(B). Moreover, in Moghaddam's prior appeal, we found no error with respect to the restitution order.
AFFIRMED.