Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Carlos FARIAS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-03-10
Citations: 269 F. App'x 645
Docket Number: No. 06-50471
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Carlos FARIAS, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 269
Pages: 645–646

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Carlos FARIAS, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 06-50471.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 26, 2008 .
Filed March 10, 2008.
Consuelo S. Woodhead, Esq., Michael J. Raphael, Esq., Pegeen D. Rhyne, Esq., USLA-Office of the U.S. Attorney Criminal Division, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Carlos Farias, Fontana, CA, pro se.
Thomas M. McIntosh, Esq., Thomas M. McIntosh Law Offices, Santa Ana, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: BEEZER, FERNANDEZ, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Carlos Farias appeals from the 33-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for health care fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1347. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
We construe Farias' one paragraph argument to challenge the reasonableness of his sentence and to contend that the district court erred by failing to reduce his restitution amount. We conclude that Farias' sentence is reasonable. See Gall v. United States, — U.S. -, 128 S.Ct. 586, 597-98, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). Additionally, because the restitution amount ordered was the amount contemplated in the plea agreement, and because Farias failed to object during sentencing, we conclude that the district court did not plainly err in determining the amount of restitution. See United States v. Zink, 107 F.3d 716, 719-20 (9th Cir.1997).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.