Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Brenda Kaye GRAHAM, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-01-28
Citations: 265 F. App'x 618
Docket Number: No. 06-30602
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Brenda Kaye GRAHAM, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 265
Pages: 618–619

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Brenda Kaye GRAHAM, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 06-30602.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 14, 2008.
Filed Jan. 28, 2008.
Kurt G. Alme, Esq., USBI-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Billings, MT, for PlaintiffAppellee.
Leo Sanford Selvey, Selvey Law Firm, Billings, MT, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: HALL, O’SCANNLAIN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Brenda Kaye Graham appeals from her 10-month sentence imposed following her guilty-plea conviction for Social Security fraud, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 408(a)(7)(B). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
We conclude that the district court did not clearly err in finding that Graham did not intend to repay the amounts she charged on the fraudulently obtained cred it cards. Therefore, the district court properly attributed the amount of "intended loss" in calculating Graham's advisory Sentencing Guidelines range. See U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1 cmt. n. 3(A)(ii); see also United States v. Shaw, 3 F.3d 311, 312-13 (9th Cir.1993) ('intended loss' is the amount that defendant subjectively intended not to repay).
We conclude that the record indicates that, when sentencing the defendant, the district court properly considered the arguments raised by counsel concerning the factors contained in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), and articulated its reasoning to the degree required for meaningful appellate review. See Rita v. United States, — U.S.-, 127 S.Ct. 2456, 2469, 168 L.Ed.2d 203 (2007).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.