Case ID: f-appx_249/html/0624-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Houman Backzadeh MOGHADDAM, aka Houman Moghaddam, Kevin Moda, Defendant—Appellant.
    No. 06-50515.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted Sept. 24, 2007.
    
    Filed Oct. 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.
    Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

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)(l), (c)(l)(A)(ii), (c)(1)(B). Moreover, in Moghaddam’s pri- or appeal, we found no error with respect to the restitution order.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.