U.S. v. Rodriguez

Full title: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Rosalva Torres RODRIGUEZ…

Court: United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Jun 28, 2001

13 F. App'x 590 (9th Cir. 2001)

Opinion

13 Fed.Appx. 590 (9th Cir. 2001) UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Rosalva Torres RODRIGUEZ, Defendant-Appellant. No. 00-50449. D.C. No. CR-99-2962-JNK. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. June 28, 2001

Submitted June 8, 2001 ^*.

* The 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION.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)

Defendant was convicted in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, Judith N. Keep, of mail fraud and conspiracy to commit mail fraud, and she appealed. The Court of Appeals held that: (1) evidence was sufficient to support convictions, and (2) court's restitution order does not constitute plain error.

Affirmed.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Judith N. Keep, District Judge, Presiding.

Before KOZINSKI and THOMAS, Circuit Judges, and WHYTE, ^** District Judge.

** The Honorable Ronald M. Whyte, United States District Judge for the Northern District of California, sitting by designation.

MEMORANDUM ^***

*** 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 Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

A rational trier of fact could have found based on the evidence at trial that Rodriguez committed mail fraud and conspired to commit mail fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341 and 371. Takeuchi's testimony was sufficient to establish that it was Sanyo's ordinary custom to send checks to its vendors through the U.S. mail. Further, the evidence was sufficient to allow a rational jury to conclude that use of the mails was reasonably foreseeable, where Rodriguez submitted invoices to, and received checks from, a company located hours away from her business. See Pereira v. United States, 347 U.S. 1, 8-9, 74 S.Ct. 358, 362-63, 98 L.Ed. 435 (1954).

Page 591.

The court's restitution order does not constitute plain error. The Presentence Report indicates that the probation officer did in fact contact a Sanyo representative and also contains information about Rodriguez's family situation, education, business concerns and financial condition, indicating that the court "had at [its] disposal information bearing on the considerations enumerated in section 3664." United States v. Mills, 991 F.2d 609, 611 (9th Cir.1993) (quoting United States v. Cannizzaro, 871 F.2d 809, 811 (9th Cir.1989)).

AFFIRMED.