* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, e xcept under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and col lateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judg ments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and condi tions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
1 After examining the briefs and appellate record, th is panel has determined unanimously to grant the parties’ request for a dec ision on the briefs without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The c ase is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. 

## F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### JUN 5 1998 

### PATRICK FISHER Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,
v. BENNY LITSON,

Defendant-Appellant. No. 97-2056 (D.C. No. 95-CR-579-BB) (D. N.M.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before TACHA , LOGAN , and LUCERO , Circuit Judges.
Defendant Benny Litson appeals the district court’s restitution order following his guilty plea to the charge of conspira cy to commit embezzlement from a tribal organization. We affirm. 1-2-

Defendant was ordered to pay restitution in the amo unt of $4,127.58, the value of nine head of cattle stolen from Chester Ya zzie. Defendant had included those cattle on a fraudulent Navajo Livestock Inspe ction Certificate which permitted him to sell them without having them insp ected. A proper inspection would have revealed that they had been stolen. Def endant claimed that he had purchased the cattle from one Rose Sandman and thathe did not know they had been stolen from Mr. Yazzie. The district court fo und no need for an evidentiary hearing because the only disputed fact was whether defendant knew the cattle were stolen and neither side had any evidence relev ant to that issue. On appeal, defendant claims that the district courterred in failing to receive evidence on the question of whether he had stolen the cattle and to permit him to contest the amount of the restitution order. He also complains that a specific finding that he had stolen the livestock w as not made. Citing Hughey v. United States , 495 U.S. 411, 413 (1990), defendant apparently ar gues that he was improperly required to pay restitution for a loss c aused by conduct other than the conduct for which he was convicted. We review the district court’s findings of fact und erlying a restitution order for clear error. See United States v. Copus , 110 F.3d 1529, 1537 (10th Cir. 1997). “[T]he amount of the restitution order is r eviewed for abuse of discretion.” Id. The 1990 amendments to the Victim and Witness Pro tection Act,-3-

18 U.S.C. §§ 3663-3664, apply to defendant’s offens e, which occurred on or about October 8, 1991. At the sentencing hearing, defendant was afforded an opportunity to present evidence, but he declined. Contrary to defendant’s position, a finding that he had stolen the livestock was not a prerequisite to a re stitution order. Restitution was appropriate based on defendant’s conduct in conspir ing to obtain a fraudulent inspection certificate to facilitate the sale of Mr . Yazzie’s stolen cattle. See 18 U.S.C. § 3663(a)(2) (restitution may be ordered for victim of conspiracy to “any person directly harmed by the defendant’s crim inal conduct in the course of the . . . conspiracy”). Even though § 3663(a)(2) s upersedes Hughey , see, e.g. , United States v. Hensley , 91 F.3d 274, 276-77 (1st Cir. 1996), the restitut ion order in this case comports with Hugheybecause it was for a loss caused by the conduct that formed the basis of defendant’s convic tion. Defendant did not object to the amount of restituti on, except to argue that the amount of the loss should have been limited to the value of the inspection certificate, $9.00. The presentence investigation report indicates that defendant sold Mr. Yazzie’s cattle for the sum of $4,127.58, the amount of the restitution order. Accordingly, we hold that the government carried its burden of demonstrating the amount of the loss sustained by Mr. Yazzie, see 18 U.S.C.-4-

§ 3664(e), and we find no abuse of discretion in th e restitution order. AFFIRMED. ENTERED FOR THE COURT

Carlos F. Lucero Circuit Judge