Case ID: f-appx_255/html/0267-01.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. Jon R. PERROTON, Defendant—Appellant.
    No. 06-10741.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Nov. 13, 2007 .
    Filed Nov. 26, 2007.
    Beong-Soo Kim, Esq., USLA — Office of the U.S. Attorney Criminal Division, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Jay Rorty, Esq., FPDCA — Federal Public Defender’s Office, San Jose, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: TROTT, W. FLETCHER, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Jon R. Perroton appeals from his conviction and 15-month sentence for making a false statement to the U.S. Probation Office, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Perroton contends that the sentencing judge improperly calculated the amount of intended loss. After reviewing the record, we find no clear error. The amount of intended loss upon which the district court based its sentence is supported by the record. See U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1 cmt. n. 3(A)(ii); see also United States v. McCormac, 309 F.3d 623, 629 (9th Cir.2002). Hence the district court’s “reasonable, if rough, estimate of the intended loss” is not clearly erroneous. See United States v. Cooper, 173 F.3d 1192, 1207 (9th Cir.1999).

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