Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Angela DUMAIS, a/k/a Angela Flodstrom, dba Truth in Gold, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-09-16
Citations: 293 F. App'x 485
Docket Number: No. 05-10824
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Angela DUMAIS, a/k/a Angela Flodstrom, dba Truth in Gold, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 293
Pages: 485–486

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Angela DUMAIS, a/k/a Angela Flodstrom, dba Truth in Gold, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 05-10824.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 8, 2008.
Filed Sept. 16, 2008.
Tracy A. Hino, Assistant U.S. Attorney, USH-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Honolulu, HI, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Alexander Silvert, Esq., Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Honolulu, HI, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: TASHIMA, SILVERMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed.R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Angela Dumais appeals from the 57-month sentence imposed following her guilty-plea conviction for wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Dumais contends that the district court erred by treating the Sentencing Guidelines as presumptively reasonable and by failing to understand its discretion to impose a sentence of probation. We conclude that there was no procedural error because the sentencing judge considered the specific facts of Dumais's case and indicated that he understood his discretion. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 994-95 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc).
Dumais contends that the district court erred by applying the incorrect standard of proof to determine the amount of loss and the number of victims. He also contends that there was insufficient evidence to establish these numbers. We conclude there was no error because the uncontroverted presentence report contained clear and convincing evidence of the predicate facts. See United States v. Romero-Rendon, 220 F.3d 1159, 1161-63 (9th Cir.2000).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provid ed by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.