United States v. Ashley Chambers

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 02 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 15-30116
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 2:14-cr-00077-RMP
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ASHLEY BONAIR CHAMBERS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Washington
Rosanna Malouf Peterson, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 24, 2016**
Before: REINHARDT, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Ashley Bonair Chambers appeals from the district court’s judgment and
challenges his jury-trial conviction and 30-month sentence for bank fraud, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1344; wire fraud affecting a financial institution, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343; and conspiracy to commit bank fraud and wire fraud
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
affecting a financial institution, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1349. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Chambers contends that the district court erred by refusing to instruct the
jury to determine the amount of loss resulting from each of his convictions. We
review de novo. See United States v. Cortes, 757 F.3d 850, 857 (9th Cir. 2014).
Because the loss amount calculations affected neither the statutory maximum nor
any mandatory minimum sentence applicable to Chambers’s convictions, the
district court was not required to submit them to the jury. See United States v.
Vallejos, 742 F.3d 902, 906-07 (9th Cir. 2014). The district court appropriately
exercised its discretion to determine the loss amount during sentencing, pursuant to
the advisory Guidelines. See United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 233 (2005).
Chambers’s second motion for reconsideration of the court’s order declining
to entertain his pro se motion to intervene is denied. The arguments contained in
Chambers’s pro se motions filed on January 13, 2016, and February 4, 2016, have
been considered and do not change the result in this case.
AFFIRMED.
2 15-30116