Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Rohit REDDY, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2018-01-29
Citations: 710 F. App'x 329
Docket Number: No. 16-30312
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Rohit REDDY, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: REINHARDT, TROTT, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 710
Pages: 329–329

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Rohit REDDY, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 16-30312
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted January 16, 2018
Filed January 29, 2018
Helen J. Brunner, Esquire, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Rebecca Shapiro Cohen, Esquire, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Teal Lu-thy Miller, Thomas Merton Woods, Esquire, Assistant U.S. Attorney, DOJ-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Seattle, WA, for Plaintiff-Appellee
Terrence Kellogg, Counsel, Law Office of Terrence Kellogg, Seattle, WA, for Defendant-Appellant
Before: REINHARDT, TROTT, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Rohit Reddy appeals the 14-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for SNAP benefit fraud in violation of 7 U.S.C. § 2024. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Reddy contends that the district court violated his right to due process by relying on the Guidelines' instruction to make "a reasonable estimate" of the loss caused by his fraud without specifying the methodology it used to establish its estimate. See U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1 cmt. n.3(C). We disagree. The record reflects that the court explained its methodology for determining loss, and that its methodology was reasonable. Even assuming that the court's calculation had to be supported by clear and convincing evidence, see United States v. Mezas de Jesus, 217 F.3d 638, 642 (9th Cir. 2000) (clear and convincing standard applies "when a sentencing factor has an extremely disproportionate effect on the sentence relative to the offense of conviction" (internal quotations omitted)), the record shows that it was. The court did not clearly err in its loss calculation, see United States v. Garro, 517 F.3d 1163, 1167 (9th Cir. 2008), or violate Reddy's due process rights, see United States v. Christensen, 732 F.3d 1094, 1106 (9th Cir. 2013) ("To establish that his due process rights were violated, [a defendant] must show that materially false or unreliable information was demonstrably made the basis for the sentence imposed by the district court.").
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.