N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT UNITED STATES OF AM ER IC A,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lle e , v. C HER IE RENEE DILLON,

De fe nda n t-Appe l la

nt. No. 17-30122

D.C . No. 1:16-c r-00037-B LW -1 M EM O R ANDUM *

UNITED STATES OF AM ER IC A,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt, v. C HER IE RENEE DILLON,

De fe nda n t-Appe l le e . No. 17-30235 D.C . No. 1:16-c r-00037-B LW -1

Appe a ls from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ida

ho B . Ly nn W inm ill, C hie f Judge , Pre siding Argue d an d Subm i tte d De c e m be r 5, 2018 Se a ttle , W a s hington 

# FIL ED DEC 14 2018 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.B e fore : GR AB E R , M c KEOW

N, a nd C HR ISTEN, C irc uit Judge s. C he rie R e n e e Dillon a

ppe a ls from

he r guilty ple a

to twe nty -four c ounts e a c h of he a lth c are fra

ud a n d a ggravate d ide n t ity

the ft. The gove rnm e nt c ross-a ppe a ls, c ha lle nging only

the distric t c ourt’ s c a lc ulation of re stitution. W e have jurisdic tion pursua nt to 28 U.S.C . § 1291. W e dism i ss Dillon’ s a p pe a l a nd va c a te the re stitution orde

r and re m and for re -c a lc ulation of re s titution. 1 1. Dillon’ s Dire c t Appe a l. W e re vie w d e nov o the va lidity

of a n a ppe a l wa ive r. Se e Unite d State

s v . Me dina-C

arrasc o , 815 F.3d 457, 461 (9th C i r. 2016). An a ppe a l wa ive r is va l id a

nd e nforc e a

ble if, a m ong othe r re quire m e nts, it wa s inc l ude d in the te rm s of a knowing a

n d volunta

ry guilty ple a . Id. “ A fa ilure to e nsure tha

t a de fe nda

nt unde rsta

nds his ra nge of e xposure m ay

viola te the re quire m e nt tha

t a guilty ple a be ‘ knowing a

nd volunta

ry .’ ” Unite d State

s v . Forre s te r , 616 F.3d 929, 938 (9th C ir. 2010). To sa tisfy this obliga

tion, “ distric t c ourts in this c i rc uit . . . m ust inform de fe nda

n ts ple a ding guilty

of the dire c t c onse q ue nc e s of the ir ple a

and re sulting c onvic tion[.] ” Unite d State s v . Little john , 224 F.3d 960, 965 (9th C ir. 2000).

1 B e c a

use the pa rtie s a re fam ilia r with the fa c t s a

nd a rgum e n ts on a ppe a l, we do not re c ite the m . 2The re c ord de m o n strat e s tha t Dillon wa s wa

rne d of the dire c t

c o nse que nc e s of he r ple a . The distric t c ourt’ s ple a c olloquy wa s e x t e nsive : it wa rne d Dillon tha

t the PSR m ight inc lude losse s re late d to c o nduc t for whic h she ha d not ple a de d guilty ; tha

t the loss a

m o unt would bethe prim ary drive r of he r guide line range ; that forfe iture w a s im

plic a te d; a

nd tha t the gove rnm e nt c ould pursuea loss the ory for m ore tha

n the am o unt a lle ge d in the indic tm e nt. Dillon verba lly a c knowle dge d e a c h of the se warnings. B e c a use he r ple a

wa s knowing a

nd volunta

ry , Dillon’ s wa ive r of he r a

ppe l late rights—inc luding he r right to c ha lle nge the forfe iture and re stitution orde

rs— ba rs a ny furthe r c onside ra tion of he r c la im s a nd we m ust dism iss he r a

p pe a l . S e e Me dina-C

arrasc o , 815 F.3d a

t 461–63 (e nforc ing a ppe lla te wa ive r whe re it wa s knowingly and volunta

rily m a de an d dism issing a ppe a l). 2. The Gove rnm e nt’ s C ross-Appe a l. The M andat ory Vic tim s R e stitution Ac t of 1996 (“ M VR

A” ) provide s tha

t “ the c ourt sha l l orde r . . . tha t the de fe nda

n t m ake re stitution to the vic tim

of the offe nse ” following c onvic tion for c e rta i n ty pe s of c rim e s. 18 U.S.C . § 3663A(a )(1). “ The le ga lity of a n orde r of re stitution is re vie we d de nov o , a

nd fa c tua l findings supporting the orde r are re vie we d for c le ar e rror.” Unite d State

s v . Luis , 765 F.3d 1061, 1065 (9th C ir. 2014) (inte rna l quota t ion m arks om itte d). 3Although re stitution is m e ant to c om

pe nsate vic t im s for the ir “ a c tua l losse s[,] ” Unite d State

s v . Hunte r , 618 F.3d 1062, 1064 (9th C ir. 2010) (inte rna l quota t ion m arks a

n d e m pha sis om itte d), “ [u] nde r the M VR A, re stitution ‘ m ay

be awarde d only

for losse s for whic h the de fe nda nt’ s c onduc t wa s a

n a c tua l and proxim a te c a

use . ’ ” Unite d State

s v . Sw or , 728 F.3d 971, 974 (9th C ir. 2013) (pe r c uriam ) (quoting Unite d State s v . K e nne d y , 643 F.3d 1251, 1261 (9th C i r. 2011)). Apply ing the se princ iple s, we c onc lude tha t the distric t c ourt prope rly de duc te d billings for servic e s provide d by c ontra c t de ntists be c a

use the only

e vide nc e is tha

t those de ntists pe rform e d the ir own e xam inations be fore providing se rvic e s. The ir e xam inations c onstitute

an “ inte rve ning c a

use ” tha t se ve rs the c ha in of proxim a te c a usation be twe e n Dillon’ s fra udule nt c o nduc t a

n d pa ym e nts by the vic tim insure rs. Id. (inte rna l quota tion m arks om itte d) Howe v e r, we furthe r c onc lude tha t the distric t c ourt should not ha ve de duc te d billings for hy

g ie ne se rvic e s Dillon pe rform e d. Eve n billings for servic e s within thesc ope of he r lic e nse we re fra udule nt be c a

use Dillon wa s not supe rvise d and she wa s not a

uthoriz e d to pe rform

the se se rvic e s without supe rvision. Ac c ordingly , we va c a te only the distric t

c o urt’ s re s titution order a nd re m and for re c a lc ulation of re stitution. On re m and, the distric t c ourt sha l l c a lc ulate a ne w re stitution figure

tha t inc lude s billings for Dillon’ s hy gie ne se rvic e s.

4Dillon’s appe al is DISM ISSE D; the r e stitution or de r is VACAT E D; and

the c ase is RE M ANDE D for r e -c alc ulation of r e stitution.

5