Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Carlos Alberto REZABALA, a.k.a. Carlos Alberto Vasquez, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-12-06
Citations: 548 F. App'x 409
Docket Number: No. 12-50307
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Carlos Alberto REZABALA, a.k.a. Carlos Alberto Vasquez, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: CANBY, TROTT, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 548
Pages: 409–409

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Carlos Alberto REZABALA, a.k.a. Carlos Alberto Vasquez, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 12-50307.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 19, 2013.
Decided Dec. 6, 2013.
Sarah J. Heidel, Assistant U.S., Dorothy C. Kim, Curtis A. Kin, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los An-geles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Kurt David Hermansen, Esquire, Law OFC of Kurt David Hermansen, San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: CANBY, TROTT, and THOMAS, 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
Carlos Alberto Rezabala's motion to lift the stay of appellate proceedings ordered by this court on September 30, 2013, is granted. Rezabala appeals from the district court's judgment and challenges the sentence imposed following his jury-trial conviction for health care fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1347. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Rezabala contends that the district court violated his Sixth Amendment rights when it applied a 14-level upward adjustment under U.S.S.G. § 2Bl.l(b)(l)(H) without submitting the issue to a jury for a finding of loss beyond a reasonable doubt. He also argues that this error was not harmless because the evidence in the record permits a reasonable doubt regarding the amount of loss that his offense caused. This claim fails. See United States v. Hickey, 580 F.3d 922, 932 (9th Cir.2009) ("[T]he Sixth Amendment does not require that the loss be proved to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.").
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.