Case ID: f-appx_471/html/0660-01.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. Melody C. REDONDO, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 11-30203.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted March 6, 2012.
    
    Filed March 9, 2012.
    Amy Schipper Howe, Esquire, Assistant U.S. Attorney, George Breitsameter, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Boise, ID, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    James K. Ball, Jr., Esquire, Manweiler Breen Ball & Hancock, PLLC, Boise, ID, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: B. FLETCHER, REINHARDT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Melody C. Redondo appeals from the restitution order imposed following her guilty-plea conviction for making a false statement to a financial institution, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1014. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Redondo contends that the evidence was insufficient to support the amount of restitution ordered because the district court failed to resolve a factual dispute at sentencing and failed to justify its restitution calculation. Redondo did not object to the amount of restitution before the district court. To the extent the district court failed to resolve a factual dispute, the error was neither plain, nor did it affect Redondo’s substantial rights. See United States v. Zink, 107 F.3d 716, 718 (9th Cir.1997). Furthermore, there was sufficient evidence and justification to support the amount of restitution ordered. See id. at 719-20.

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