United States v. Rohit Reddy

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JAN 29 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 16-30312
Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 2:16-cr-00189-JLR
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ROHIT REDDY,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
James L. Robart, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 16, 2018**
Before: REINHARDT, TROTT, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Rohit Reddy appeals the 14-month sentence imposed following his guilty-
plea conviction for SNAP benefit fraud in violation of 7 U.S.C. § 2024. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Reddy contends that the district court violated his right to due process by
relying on the Guidelines’ instruction to make “a reasonable estimate” of the loss
caused by his fraud without specifying the methodology it used to establish its
estimate. See U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1 cmt. n.3(C). We disagree. The record reflects that
the court explained its methodology for determining loss, and that its methodology
was reasonable. Even assuming that the court’s calculation had to be supported by
clear and convincing evidence, see United States v. Mezas de Jesus, 217 F.3d 638,
642 (9th Cir. 2000) (clear and convincing standard applies “when a sentencing
factor has an extremely disproportionate effect on the sentence relative to the
offense of conviction” (internal quotations omitted)), the record shows that it was.
The court did not clearly err in its loss calculation, see United States v. Garro, 517
F.3d 1163, 1167 (9th Cir. 2008), or violate Reddy’s due process rights, see United
States v. Christensen, 732 F.3d 1094, 1106 (9th Cir. 2013) (“To establish that his
due process rights were violated, [a defendant] must show that materially false or
unreliable information was demonstrably made the basis for the sentence imposed
by the district court.”).
AFFIRMED.
2 16-30312