Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Patrick Charles THOMAS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-02-24
Citations: 594 F. App'x 356
Docket Number: No. 13-30294
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Patrick Charles THOMAS, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: O’SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 594
Pages: 356–357

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Patrick Charles THOMAS, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 13-30294.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 17, 2015.
Filed Feb. 24, 2015.
Carl E. Rostad, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Great Falls, MT, Leif Johnson, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Billings, MT, for Plaintiff-Appel-lee.
Daniel Donovan, Esquire, Daniel Donovan, PC, Great Falls, MT, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, and FERNANDEZ, 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
Patrick Charles Thomas appeals from the district court's judgment awarding restitution to the government in the amount of $162,865.36, following Thomas's guilty-plea conviction for conversion of secured property, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 658. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Thomas contends that the district court erred by awarding restitution based on the value of properties converted by him because the government subsequently forgave payment on the loans for which the properties served as collateral, pursuant to a settlement reached in Keepseagle v. Vil-sak. We need not reach this issue because Thomas has admitted that he did not meet the requirements under the Keepseagle settlement. The government has recently obtained a civil judgment against Thomas, based on the court's finding that Thomas made a fraudulent Keepseagle claim. See United States v. Thomas, No. 4:13-cv-00094-BMM (D.Mont.2014).
We have reviewed Thomas's pro se supplemental brief and decline to consider Thomas's claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel because the record is insufficiently developed to evaluate that claim on direct appeal, and Thomas's legal representation was not so inadequate as to obviously deny his right to counsel. See United States v. Rahman, 642 F.3d 1257, 1259-60 (9th Cir.2011). Thomas's remaining contentions lack merit.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.