Case ID: f-appx_710/html/0329-01.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. Rohit REDDY, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 16-30312
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted January 16, 2018 
    
    Filed January 29, 2018
    Helen J. Brunner, Esquire, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Rebecca Shapiro Cohen, Esquire, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Teal Lu-thy Miller, Thomas Merton Woods, Esquire, Assistant U.S. Attorney, DOJ-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Seattle, WA, for Plaintiff-Appellee
    Terrence Kellogg, Counsel, Law Office of Terrence Kellogg, Seattle, WA, for Defendant-Appellant
    Before: REINHARDT, TROTT, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Rohit Reddy appeals the 14-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for SNAP benefit fraud in violation of 7 U.S.C. § 2024. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Reddy contends that the district court violated his right to due process by relying on the Guidelines’ instruction to make “a reasonable estimate” of the loss caused by his fraud without specifying the methodology it used to establish its estimate. See U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1 cmt. n.3(C). We disagree. The record reflects that the court explained its methodology for determining loss, and that its methodology was reasonable. Even assuming that the court’s calculation had to be supported by clear and convincing evidence, see United States v. Mezas de Jesus, 217 F.3d 638, 642 (9th Cir. 2000) (clear and convincing standard applies “when a sentencing factor has an extremely disproportionate effect on the sentence relative to the offense of conviction” (internal quotations omitted)), the record shows that it was. The court did not clearly err in its loss calculation, see United States v. Garro, 517 F.3d 1163, 1167 (9th Cir. 2008), or violate Reddy’s due process rights, see United States v. Christensen, 732 F.3d 1094, 1106 (9th Cir. 2013) (“To establish that his due process rights were violated, [a defendant] must show that materially false or unreliable information was demonstrably made the basis for the sentence imposed by the district court.”).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.