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. DEB R A C HR ISTINE C L ARK , De fe nda n t-Appe l la

nt. No. 17-50211

D.C . No. 2:16-c r-00256-PSG-1
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia Philip S. Gutierre z , Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d an d Subm i tte d De c e m be r 4, 2018 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : O’ SC A

N NLAIN a nd IKUTA, C irc uit Judge s, a nd KENNELLY, ** Distric t Judge
. De fe nda

nt De bra C la rk a ppe a ls the orde r of re stitution en te re d following her guilty ple a . W e have jurisdic tion unde r 18 U.S.C . § 3742(a) and 28 U.S.C . § 1291. 

# F IL ED JAN 14 2019 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, 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 Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The Honora

ble M atthe w F. Ke nne lly , Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the N orthe rn Distric t of Illinois, sitting by de signa tion.W e re vie w C la rk’ s c ha lle nge to the re stitution orde r for pla in e rror. Se e Unite d State s v . Yijun Zhou , 838 F.3d 1007, 1010 (9th C ir. 2016). C l ark is not
e ntitle d to de novo re v ie w of he r c la im e ve n though she

obje c t e d to theam ount of
re stitution a

t se nte nc ing, be c a

use he r argum e nt on a

ppe a l is m ate ria lly

diffe re nt tha n the argum e n t

m a de to the distric t c ourt. S e eUnite d State

s v . W ahid, 614 F.3d 1009, 1013 (9th C ir. 2010); se e also Fe d. R . C rim . P. 52(b). The distric t c ourt e rre d in a warding $112,996 in re stitution b e c a u se a c ourt
m ay award re stitution unde

r the M andatory

Vic tim s R e stitution Ac t “ only for loss that flows dire c tly

from the spe c ific c onduc t tha

t is the ba s is of the offe nse of
c onvic tion.” Unite d State s v . May , 706 F.3d 1209, 1214 (9th C ir. 2013) (quoting Unite d State s v . Gamma Te c h Indus., Inc

. , 265 F.3d 917, 927 (9th C ir. 2001)) (inte rna l quota

t ion m a rks om itte d). He re , the spe c ific c onduc t c ha rge d in the indic tm e nt, whic h wa s the ba s is of C la rk’ s guilty ple a , ga

v e rise to losse s tota ling only $40,036. The distric t

c ourt’ s a ward of m ore tha

n $40,036 in re stitution wa s the re fore an e rror, and the e rror wa s pla in be c a use it wa s “ c le ar or obvious under
c urre nt la w.” Unite d State

s v . DeLa Fue nte , 353 F.3d 766, 769 (9th C ir. 2003). Furthe r, the distric t c o urt’ s e rror a ffe c t e d C l ark’ s substa

ntia l rights be c a

use she ha s shown “ a re a s ona ble proba bility tha t, but for thee rror,” the am ount of re stitution orde re d would ha

ve be e n diffe re nt. Unite d State

s v . Domingue

z Be nite z , 542 U.S.
274, 76 (2004). La stly , the e rror “ se riously a ffe c t [e d] the fa irne ss, inte grity , or public re puta

tion of [the ] judic ia l proc e e dings,” be c a u se the distric t c ourt la c ke d the l e ga l a

uthority to orde r re stitution in a n am ount e x c e e d ing the losse s c a u se d by the c ha rge s spe c ific a lly

ple a de d in theindic tm e nt. Se e Unite d State s v . Fu She ng K uo , 620 F.3d 1158, 1164–66 (9th C ir. 2010); se e also United State s v . Ame line , 409 F.3d 1073, 1102 (9th C ir. 2005) (e n ba nc ) (holding tha

t im position of a

n ille g a l se n te nc e is “ a

m isc a rria ge of justic e ” tha

t sa tisfie s the fourth e le m e nt of the pla i n e rror te st). W e the re fore e xe rc ise our disc re tion to c orre c t a forfe i te d e rror, Unite d State s v . Olano , 507 U.S. 725, 732 (1993), a nd we re ve rse the distric t
c ourt’ s ruling. RE V E RSE D.

3Unite d

State s v . C lark , No. 17-50211 IKUTA, C irc uit Judge , disse nting: In a sta te m e nt submitte d to thedistric t c ourt be fore he r guilty ple a , at he r
c ha nge of ple a

he aring, a

nd at he r se nte n c ing he aring, De bra C la rk stipula te d tha t she unla wfully obta ine d $112,996 from the Soc ia l Se c urity Adm inistra

tion. On
a ppe a l, she doe s not dispute this fa c t. B e c a use the spe c ific c onduc t c ha rge d in theindic tm e n t ga

ve rise to losse s tota ling only

$40,036, the

distric t c ourt e rre d in orde ring C la rk to pa y $112,996 in
re stitution. Se e Unite d State s v . May , 706 F.3d 1209, 1214 (9th C i r. 2013). Howe ve r, a

c ourt’ s im

p osition of a

se nte nc e tha

t is inc onsiste n t with theindic tm e nt is not ne c e ssa

rily a pla in e rror if the se nte nc e wa s ba se d on e vide nc e tha t “ w a s
ove rwhe lm ing a

nd e sse ntia lly

unc ontrove rte d.” Unite d State s v . C otton , 535 U.S. 625, 632-33 (2002) (inte

rna l quota

tion m a rks om itte d). Unde r those
c irc um s ta nc e s , the e rror doe s not “ s e riously a ffe c t the fa irne ss, inte grity , or public
re puta tion of judic ia l proc e e dings.” R athe r, the Supre m e C ourt ha s told us, “ [t] he
re a l thre at” to the “ fa irne ss, inte grity , an d public re p utation of judic ia l proc e e dings” would be if the de fe nda nts, “ de spite the ove rwhe lm ing a nd
unc ontrove rte d e vide nc e , ” we re to re c e ive a le sse r se nte n c e “ be c a

u se of a n e rror that wa s ne ve r obje c te d to a

t tria l.” Id. at 634. B e c a use “ ove rwhe lm i n g a

nd unc ontrove rte d e vide nc e ” supports the distric t 

# FIL ED JAN 14 2019 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U

. S. CO URT O F APPEALSc ourt’ s re stitution orde r he re , I would hold tha

t the distric t c ourt did not pla inly e rr,
and I would a ffirm

the distric t c ourt. The re fore , I disse nt.