### I N THE UNI TED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FI F TH CI RCUI T

No. 12-11215 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee

v. EDWARD HAMPTON, III, Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court f or the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:10-CR-245-1

Before DAVIS, BENAVIDES, and PRADO, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Edward Hampton, III, p leaded guilty to theft of mail by a postal e mployee,

a violation of 1 8 U.S.C. § 1709. He was sentenced t o 24 months of imprisonment and two years of supervised release. He was also ordered to pay restitution in the amount of $166,116.47. Hampton challe n g e s t h e loss calculation and the restitution order. He argu e s t hat the evidence was not s ufficient t o s h ow that he w as responsible for four of the seven Express Mail p a r c e l s upon which the loss calculation and restitution order were based. U n i t e d S t a te s C o u rt o f A p p e al s F i f t h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D October 15, 2013 Ly l e W . Cay ce Clerk

* Purs uant to 5 T H C I R

. R

. 47. 5, the court has d eterm ined that this op inion should not be p ublis hed and is not p reced ent excep t und er the lim ited circum s tances s et forth in 5 T H C I R

. R. 47. 5. 4. Case: 12-11215 Document: 00512406694 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/15/2013No. 12-11215

We review t he district court’s calculatio n o f the amount of loss under United States S e ntencing G u ideline § 2B1.1(b)(1)(G) for clear e r r o r . United States v. Sanders , 343 F .3d 511, 5 20 (5th Cir. 2003). Our re v ie w o f th e d istrict

co u r t’s “q u a n t u m o f a n a w a r d o f re stitu tio n is f o r a b u se o f d iscre tio n ” a n d

re v ie w o f its f

a ctu a l f i n d i n g s i s fo r cle a r e rro r. U n ited S t a tes v . S h a rm a , 7 0 3 F

. 3 d3 1 8 , 3 2 2 (5 th C ir.), p etitio n fo r cert. filed (A p r. 3 0 , 2 0 1 2 ) (N o . 1 2 -1 3 1 2 ). The presentence report (PSR) reflected the following: On May 21, 2 0 09, the owner of Tilak Jewelers (Tilak), i n Irving, Texas, contacted United States Postal Inspector M. Dotson and informed him that he had not received several Express M a i l parcels that h ad been mailed to h i s business. The parcels contained jewelry. The undisput e d evidence showed that in July 2 007, Hampton became t h e e mployee solely responsible for p icking up the Express Mail from that station. On February 18, 2010, postal inspectors placed a “bogus” Express M a i l p arcel addressed to Tilak into the mail system. The b ogus package contained imitation earrings. Hampton was seen leaving the postal s tation with the bogus parcel. Hampton was subsequently deta i n e d a n d i n terviewed; he admitted to stealing three Express Mail parcels in 2009. In this case, the PSR s et forth the evidence relied upon in making the loss determination, and the district court was “in a unique position to assess the evidence and estimate the loss based upon that evidenc e ” ; the court was required only to “make a reasonable estimate of the loss.” § 2B 1

. 1 , c o m m e nt. (n.3(C)). Hampton admitted to s t e aling three Express Mail parcels containing jewelry in 2009 a nd did not deny taking the bogus parcel. The information in the PSR was derived from Hampton’s admissions and investigative reports prepared by the U.S. Postal Inspection S e rvice as well as i n terviews with t he Postal Inspector. The d istrict court’s finding t hat Hampton was responsible for a t l east four more thefts of parcels from a route for w hich h e w as solely responsible is plausible in light of the evidence as a w h o l e . See Sanders, 343 F.3d a t 520. Moreover, Hampton’s challenge to the district court’s calculation of the amount he owed as 2 Case: 12-11215 Document: 00512406694 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/15/2013No. 12-11215

restitution is likewi s e u n a v ailing because our review of the r e cord shows no abuse of discretion. See Sharma , 703 F.3d at 322. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

3 Case: 12-11215 Document: 00512406694 Page: 3 Date Filed: 10/15/2013