Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Eleazar BASILIO, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-11-06
Citations: 299 F. App'x 724
Docket Number: No. 07-30160
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Eleazar BASILIO, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before: HAWKINS, RAWLINSON and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 299
Pages: 724–725

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Eleazar BASILIO, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 07-30160.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 28, 2008.
Filed Nov. 6, 2008.
Helen J. Brunner, Esq., Jill Otake, Esq., USSE — Office of The U.S. Attorney, Seattle, WA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Terrence Kellogg, Esq., Law Office of Terrence Kellogg Pacific Building, Seattle, WA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: HAWKINS, RAWLINSON and M. 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
Eleazar Basilio appeals from the restitution order imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for bank fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1344. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Basilio contends that the district court's restitution order violates the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act because it was premised on the entire amount attributable to the scheme rather than the amount for which he was personally accountable. Because Basilio admitted in his plea agreement to participating in a scheme to commit bank fraud, the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing a restitution obligation on him based on the entire amount of loss caused by the scheme. See United States v. De La Fuente, 353 F.3d 766, 772 (9th Cir.2003); United States v. Riley, 335 F.3d 919, 931-32 (9th Cir.2003); United States v. Lawrence, 189 F.Sd 838, 846-47 (9th Cir.1999).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.