NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v. ALEKSANDR SURIS, AKA Aleks, AKA Alex, AKA Sasha, AKA Aleksandr Yefimovich Suris,

Defendant

- Appellant. No. 20

- 50058
D.C. No. 2:17

- cr - 00420

- SJO

- 1

MEMORANDUM *

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v. MAXIM SVERDLOV, AKA Maksim Sverdlov,
Defendant

- Appellant. No. 20

- 50059

D.C. No. 2:17

- cr - 00420

- SJO

- 2

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California S. James Otero, District Judge, Presiding Submitted February 11, 2021 * *

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3. 

# FILED

FEB 16 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 Pasadena, California
Before: O ’ SCANNLAIN, CALLAHAN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges. Defendants Aleksandr Suris and Maxim Sverdlov appeal from their convictions, 144

- month sentences, and an $11.8 million restitution order for conspiracy to commit health care fraud against Medicare and conspiracy to commit money laundering . Suris also appeals from his conviction s for conspiracy to commit health care fraud and six counts of health care fraud involving Cigna

. As the p arties are familiar with the facts, we do not recount them here

. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 18 U.S.C. § 3742 , and we affirm.
1. The Defendants argue that their convictions should be reversed because they were based on the “inherently untrustworthy” and “implausible” testimonies
of two co

- conspirators who had struck plea deals with the government. We review challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence de novo, “ and must determine whether, viewing the evidence in the light most favora ble to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a
reasonable doubt.” United States v. Liew , 856 F.3d 585, 596 (9th Cir. 2017) (internal quotation marks omitted). Here, the jury was fully aware of the plea deal s
and had even been instructed to consider the extent to which the co

- conspirators’

** The panel unanimously concludes these cases are suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).3

testimonies “may have been influenced by ” the pleas

. Because t his court is “powerless to question a jury’s assessment of witnesses’ credibility , ” Uni ted States
v. Johnson , 229 F.3d 891, 894 (9th Cir. 2000) , the Defendants’ arguments lack
merit

. Furthermore , nothing in the record suggests that either co

- conspirator ’ s testimony was “incredible or insubstantial on its face,” United States v. Necoechea , 9 86 F.2d 1273, 1282 (9th Cir. 1993) , and the Defendants ’ other arguments regarding deficiencies in the evidence conflict with the record and are thus
insufficient to overturn their convictions.
2. The Defendants also challenge their 144

- month sentences on the basis that the district court clearly erred when it calculated an $11.8 million loss

amount

— a finding that resulted in a 20

- level increase in the Defendants’ offense levels under the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines

. We review factual determin ations, including “the amount of loss in cases of fraud,” for clear error. United States v. Popov , 742 F.3d 911, 914 (9th Cir. 2014). “Clear error review is significantly deferential and requires us to accept the district court’s findings absent a defini te
and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” Id

. That standard has not
been met here. The district court calculated the loss amount by relying on a May 2015 “invoice reconciliation,” which the Defendants challenge as “unreliable”
because i t was missing several months of wholesaler data

. But the district court only needs to make a “reasonable estimate of the loss” amount. U.S.S.G. § 2B1.14

cmt. n.3(C). It does not need “mathematical” certainty. United States v. Gainza , 982 F.3d 762, 765 (9th Cir. 2020). Moreover, given the evidence that the
reconciliation credited the Defendants’ pharmacy for known fake invoices and that
the wholesaler’s operations were mostly a sham, there is no “definite and firm conviction” that the missing data w ould have reduced the loss calculation

— let
alone enough to affe ct the Defendants’ senten ces
. Popov , 742 F.3d at 914; s ee also
U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(1)( K ) (indicating that the Defendants would need a roughly $ 2.3 million reduction in the calculated loss amount to affect their sentencing

range ).
The Defendants also argue that the district court inadequately explained its
loss calculation , violating their due process rights

. These arguments mirror the ir substantive challenges to the reconc iliation and can be rejected for the same

reasons. Furthermore, the district court adequately explained that it was choosing the lower estimate to give the Defendants the “benefit of the doubt.”
3. Finally, the Defendants challenge their $11.8 million res titution order on the ground that it is based on the “indisputably flawed and unreliable May 2015 Reconciliation.” Both parties agree that this challenge “collapses with the[] challenge to the district court’s determination of the loss amount.” Because t he court did not err in finding an $11.8 million loss, it also did not err in ordering $11.8 million in restitution.5

AFFIRMED

.