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. R ANDY LEE W ILKINS, De fe nda

nt - Appe lla

nt. No. 14-10256

D.C . No. 1:12-c r-00039-LJO-B AM -1 M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Ea ste rn Distric t of C a lifornia Lawre n c e J. O'Ne ill, Distric t Judge , Pre s iding Argue d a nd Subm i tte d April 14, 2016 * San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : THOM AS, C hie f Judge and REINHAR DT a nd C HR ISTEN, C i rc uit Judge s . R andy W i lkins a

ppe a ls his c onvic tion a

nd se nte n c e for c onspira c y to c om m it wire and ba

nk fra u d , wire fra

ud, a nd ba nk fra ud in viola

tion of 18 U.S.C . 

# FIL ED APR 25 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.§§ 1349, 1343, a nd 1344. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291, a nd we re ve rse in pa

rt, a ffirm in pa rt, a nd re m and.

I B e c a use W ilkins e le c te d to pre e m ptive ly introduc e his prior c o nvic tion on dire c t e xam ination, he wa ive d any right to c ha l le nge the a dm ission of his prior c onvic tion. Se e Unite d State s v . De c oud , 456 F.3d 996, 1011 (9th C ir. 2006).

II The distric t c ourt did not pla inly e rr by orde ring W ilkins to pa y $736,965.40 in re stitution a s re quire d by the M andatory

Vic tim R e stitution Ac t of 1996 (“ M VR A” ). 18 U.S.C . §§ 3663A, 3664. The distric t c ourt did not pla inly e rr by c a lc ulating theam ount of loss attributa ble to W ilkins. “

N othing in the

M VR Aor our c a s e la

w re quire s tha

t the distric t c o urt c onside r c e rta in fa c tors or m ake findings of fa c t on the re c ord.” Unite d State s v . Pe te rson , 538 F.3d 1064, 1077 (9th C ir. 2008). The pre se nte nc e re port’ s loss c a lc ulation re lie d on a re port pre pa

re d by the gove rnm e n t’ s inve stiga ting a ge nt tha

t wa s inc lude d in the pre s e nte nc e re port a s Atta c hm e nt A. This re port c onta ine d a

n ite m iz e d list of the

prope rtie s a

nd loss a m ounts for priva

te and institutiona

l le nde rs. The c ourt inc lude d a c opy of the re port in its judgm e nt. Thus, there c o rd indic ate s tha t the c ourt re lie d

on this report a

nd the c orre sponding 2te stim ony

at tria l in re a c h ing its c onc lusion a s to the am ount of the re stitution. Se e id. at 1077–78. M ore ove r, W ilkins ha s not shown how the re port’ s c a lc ulation without the

be ne fit of Robe rs v . Unite d State s , 134 S. C t. 1854 (2014) pre j udic e d him . The distric t c ourt a l so did not pla inly e rr by fa iling to e xpre s sly spe c i fy tha t W ilkins’ s re stitution lia

bility is joint a

nd se ve ra l. Unde r 18 U.S.C . § 3664(h), a c ourt issuing a

re stitution orde

r is pe rm itte d

to a pportion lia

bility am ong de fe nda n ts a c c o rding to c ulpa

bility or c a pa c ity to pa y , or, in thea lte rnative , m ake e a c h de fe nda

nt lia b le for the full a

m ount of re stitution. This provision “ give s the c ourt the disc re tion e ithe r to m ake m ultiplede fe nda

nts jointly and se ve ra lly

lia ble for pa ym e nt of the full re stitution a ward, or to a

pportion the

re s titution order am ong the va

rious de fe nda

nts.” S.R e p. No. 104–179, a t 15 (1996), re

printe d in 1996 U.S.C .C .A.N. 924, 928. In this c a se , the re c o rd re fle c ts tha t the distric t c ourt inte nde d to im pose joint and se v e ra l lia

bility on W ilkins. The

distric t c ourt de signa

t e d the lia bility a s joint and se v e ra l on W ilkins’ s c o-c onspira tor’ s re stitution orde

r. The distric t c ourt a lso m a de spe c ific re fe re nc e to W i lkins a nd his distric t c ourt doc ke t num be r on W ilkins’ s c o-c onspira

tor’ s re stitution orde

r. III 3The distric t c ourt did not pla inly e rr by orde ring forfe iture of $736,965.40.

“ The distric t c ourt m

ust im pose c rim ina l forfe i ture in the am ount of the ‘ proc e e ds’ of the c rim e .” Unite d State s v . N e w man , 659 F.3d 1235, 1239 (9th C i r. 2011). The proc e e ds of a

“ fraudule ntly

obta ine d loa

n e qua l the am ount of theloa n” and, in a c onspira c y , the proc e e ds “ e q u a l the tota l a

m o unt of the loa

ns obta ine d by

the c onspira c y

a s a whole .” Id . at 1244. W ilkins c o m

m itte d ba nk fra ud a nd wire fra

ud whe n he obta ine d loa

ns from institutiona

l le n de rs through fa lsifie d loa n a pplic at ions. W ilkins use d the se fraudule ntly obta ine d loa

ns to purc ha se prope rtie s tha t se rve d a s c olla t e ra l for obta ining a dditiona l loa

ns from priva te le nde rs. The se a dditiona l loa ns we re not disc lose d to the institutiona

l le nde rs or use d a s re pre se n te d by W ilkins to priva

te le nde rs. Thus, thedistric t c ourt did not pla i nly e rr by de te rm ining tha

t the proc e e ds of W ilkins’ s fra udule nt a c tivity

inc l ude d loa

n s from priva te le nde rs. IV W ilkins’ s se nte n c e wa s not proc e dura lly fla we d or substa

ntive l y unre a s ona

ble . The distric t c ourt did not err proc e dura lly . It c orre c tly c a lc ulate d the Se nte nc ing Guide line s ra nge ; c onside re d a

nd e xplic itly

re fe re nc e d the 18 U.S.C . § 3553(a ) se n te nc i ng fa c tors on there c ord; a nd a de quate l y e xpla ine d the se nte nc e . S

e e Unite d State

s v . C arty , 520 F.3d 984, 991–93 (9th C ir. 2008). A 4distric t c o urt’ s e xp la nation for a

se nte nc e will be “ le ga l ly

suffic ie nt” if the “ re c ord m ake s c le ar that the se n t e nc ing judgeliste ne d to e a c h a rgum e nt a nd c onside re d the supporting e vide nc e .” Unite d State s v . Sandov al–Ore llana , 714 F.3d 1174, 1181 (9th C ir.2013) (quoting Rita v . Unite d State s , 551 U.S. 338, 358 (2007)). The distric t c ourt did not err substa ntive ly whe n im posing diffe re nt se nte nc ing be twe e n W i lkins a nd his c o-c o nspira

tor. Se e Unite d State

s v . C hhun , 744 F.3d 1110, 1123–24 (9th C ir. 2014) . The c ourt e xpla ine d tha t W ilkins’ s c oc onspira tor c o u ld be e xpe c te d to re c e ive a le sse r se nte nc e be c a

u se he c oope ra te d with a uthoritie s in the inve s tiga tion, did not e

nga ge in obstruc t ion or pe rjury , a nd suffe re d from

m a jor m e dic a l issue s. The c ourt furthe r note d tha t W ilkins wa s the le a de r of the c onspira c y . V The distric t c ourt pla inly

e rre d by im posing on W ilkins supervise d re le a se c onditions re l ating to a lc ohol use , drug a nd a lc ohol te sting, a

nd pa rtic ipation in a substa nc e a buse tre atm e nt progra

m . The re is no e vide nc e tha t at the tim e of se nte nc ing W ilkins ha d

an a lc ohol or substa

nc e a buse proble m . Se e Unite d State s v . Be tts , 511 F.3d 872, 877–78 (9th C i r. 2007). Ac c ordingly , we va c ate the spe c ia l c onditions five , six, a

nd se ve n a

nd re m a nd to thedistric t

c ourt with dire c tions to om i t the c onditions. 5AFFIRM E D IN PART , RE V E RSE D IN PART , AND RE M ANDE D.

6