Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Saleh O. HAMID, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-07-18
Citations: 693 F. App'x 201
Docket Number: No. 16-4735
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Saleh O. HAMID, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER, DUNCAN, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 693
Pages: 201–201

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Saleh O. HAMID, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 16-4735
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: June 23, 2017
Decided: July 18, 2017
Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Eric J. Brignac, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. John Stuart Bruce, United States Attorney, Jennifer P. May-Parker, First Assistant United States Attorney, Phillip A. Rubin, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before NIEMEYER, DUNCAN, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Saleh O. Hamid appeals his 30-month sentence for theft of government funds. Hamid argues that the district court erred in calculating the loss amount and restitution amount. Finding no reversible error, we affirm.
"In determining whether a district court properly applied the advisory [Sentencing] Guidelines, including application of any sentencing enhancements, we review the district court's legal conclusions de novo and its factual findings for clear error." United States v. Layton, 564 F.3d 330, 334 (4th Cir. 2009). Having carefully reviewed the record, we conclude that the district court did not clearly err in calculating a reasonable amount of loss. See U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2Bl.l(b)(l) & cmt, n.3 (2015). We also determine that the district court did not abuse its discretion by imposing restitution in an amount equal to its loss calculation under the Guidelines. See United States v. Catone, 769 F.3d 866, 875, 877 (4th Cir. 2014).
Accordingly, we affirm the district court's judgment. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED