Case ID: f-appx_653/html/0864-01.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. Ashley Bonair CHAMBERS, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 15-30116
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted May 24, 2016
    June 2, 2016
    
      George J.C. Jacobs, III, United States District Court, Spokane, WA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Terence Michael Ryan, Terence Ryan Law Office, Spokane, WA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: REINHARDT, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
   MEMORANDUM

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 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, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (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. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.