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, Plaintiff - Appe lle e , v. M AR IANO KOYAM APANGELINAN, De fe nda

nt - Appe lla

nt. No. 14-10469

D.C . No. 1:13-c r-00013-R VM -1 M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of the Northe rn M ariana Isla nds R am ona V. M an glona , C hie f Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d

June 14, 2016 ** Honolulu, Ha

wa ii B e fore : THOM AS, C hie f Judge , a nd C ALLAHAN, a

nd M UR GUIA, C irc uit Judge s . M ariano Koy am a

Pange lina

n e nte re d a

ple a a gre e m e n t a

n d ple a de d guilty

to one c ount of c o nspira c y

to c om m i t visa fra u d a nd to de frau d the Unite d State s in viola tion of 18 U.S.C . § 371. On a ppe a l, he c la im s tha

t the distric t c ourt e rre d in



# FIL ED AUG 30 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. CO URT O F APPEALS

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

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

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).orde ring him to pa y re s titution to 99 work visa a pplic ants de e m e d to ha

ve be e n vic t im s of his fra

udule n t a c ts. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 18 U.S.C . § 1291 a nd a ffirm in pa rt a nd va c at e in pa

rt. 1. On de novo re vie w, we a ffirm the distric t c ourt’ s de te rm ination tha t 99 a lie ns we re vic tim s of Pa

nge lina n’ s fra ud. Se e Unite d State

s v . DeLa Fue nte , 353 F.3d 766, 771 (9th C ir. 2003); Unite d State s v . Sanga , 967 F.2d 1332, 1334 (9th C ir. 1992). To qual ify

a s a vic tim , a pe rson m ust be “ dire c tly

and proxim at e ly ha rm e d” by the de fe nda

nt’ s c onduc t. 18 U.S.C . § 3663(a )(2). The re c ord shows tha

t, for a fe e of $810.00, Pa

nge lina n file d work visa a pplic ations with the

Unite d State s C i tiz e nship a nd Im m igration Se rvic e s on be ha lf of 99 a lie ns whom

he purporte d to e m

ploy . To c re at e the a

p pe aranc e tha

t the e m ploy m e nt re lationship wa s le gitim ate , he re quire d a pplic ants to sign illusory e m ploy m e nt c ontra c ts with the busine ss e ntity he owne d

and c ha rge d a pplic ants sum s for e m

p loy m e nt ta xe s e ve n though they

did not pe rform

work for the c om pa ny or e arn wa g e s from

it. Pa nge lina n re a ssure d the m that the ir c om plia nc e wa s e sse n tia l to thea

pplic at ion proc e ss. The re c o rd furthe r shows tha t during the c ourse of the c o nspira c y , Pange lina n a dm itte d to a

n im m i gration se rvic e a ge nt tha t he did not e m

ploy any of the a

pplic ants he a ssiste d , a

nd disre ga

rde d the wa

rning he re c e ive d from

the a ge nt tha

t his c onduc t wa s ille ga l. B a se d on this e vide nc e , we 2re

je c t Pa n ge lina n’ s c onte ntion tha

t the a pplic ants we re pa

rtic i pa n ts in his sc he m e . The re c ord suffic ie ntly

e s ta blishe s tha

t the a p plic ants we re dire c tly

and proxim ate ly

ha rm e d by , a

nd thus “vic tim s” of, his de c e ption. 2. The distric t c ourt did not err in re ly ing on c irc um sta ntia l e vide nc e to e stim ate the vic tim s’ a c t

ua l losse s. W e re vie w the c ourt’ s m e thod of c a lc ulation for a b use of disc re tion a

n d the fa c tua l findings supporting tha t c a lc ulation for c le ar e rror. Unite d State

s v . Mark s , 530 F.3d 799, 811 (9th C ir. 2008). Thedistric t c ourt wa s re quire d to de t e rm ine the “ prope r am ount or ty pe of re stitution”

by a pre p onde ranc e of the e vide nc e . 18 U.S.C . § 3664(e ). W e re c o g niz e , howe ve r, tha t distric t c o urts ha

ve “ a de gre e of fle xibility

in a c c ounting for a

vic tim ’ s c o m

ple te losse s.” Unite d

State s v . W ak nine , 543 F.3d 546, 557 (9th C i r. 2008) (quoting Unite d State s v . Gordon , 393 F.3d 1044, 1053 (9th C i r. 2004)). He re , the distric t c ourt found tha t six vic t im s suffe re d losse s e xc e e d i ng the $810.00 fe e c ha

rge d by Pange lina

n. As to the

re m a ining vic tim s , the distric t c ourt e stim ate d, ba s e d on inte rvie ws c onduc te d of 22 vic tim s a n d Pange lina

n’ s own sta te m e nts to theim

m igrat ion a

uthoritie s, tha

t e a c h vic tim

lost $810.00. The e vide nc e posse sse s a

“ suffic ie nt indic ia

of re lia b ility to support its proba

ble a c c ura c y .” U.S.S.G. § 6A1.3(a); W ak nine , 543 F.3d a

t 557 (quoting Unite d

State s v . Garc ia-Sanc he

z , 189 F.3d 1143, 1148 (9th C ir. 1999)). Ha v ing re lie d

on this 3e vide nc e , the distric t c o urt did not c hoose a m e thodology

tha t wa s a rbitra ry , irra tiona l or c ontra

ry to la w. The re c ord supports, a

nd we a ffirm , the re s titution order with re spe c t to a ll but two vic tim s who, a s the gove rnm e nt c onc e de s a nd the re c ord de m onstra

te s, suffe re d a c tua l losse s of le ss tha n $810.00 pe r vic tim . W e find tha t the distric t c ourt c le a rly e rre d in ove re s tim ating the se losse s. Ac c ordingly , we va c ate the re stitution orde

r and re m and to thedistric t c ourt for the lim ite d purpose of m odify ing the orde r to re fle c t the sm a lle r losse s suffe re d by the two vic tim s whose losse s we re ove re stim at e d. AFFIRM E D IN PART , V ACAT E D IN PART , RE M ANDE D . Ea c h pa rty sha l l be ar its own c osts.

4