Opinion ID: 1442968
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Sentencing and Restitution

Text: Zheng challenges her sentence on two grounds. Zheng first contends the advisory guideline calculation was erroneous because the loss calculation of $36,000 for conspiracy and travel fraud was premised upon speculation and conjecture and not clear and convincing evidence. Loss calculation is a factual determination of the trial court, and this court reviews a factual determination at sentencing for clear error. United States v. Tulaner, 512 F.3d 576, 578 (9th Cir. 2008). The $36,000 loss calculation in Zheng's case is based upon the $6,000 processing fee that Zheng required prospective employees to pay, multiplied by the six women from China who came to Saipan to work for Zheng. Zheng contends, at most, the court can only consider the loss incurred by Chi and Lian because they were the only women who testified against Zheng. Zheng's contention is not supported by law. [T]he full scope of the defendant's fraudulent conduct is taken into account when calculating the intended loss. Id. In this case, the government presented evidence that four other women were employed by the Tea House as prostitutes and that they were recruited in the same manner as Chi and Lian. Zheng complains her pre-sentence report (PSR) does not even identify the other `victims' upon whom it based its loss calculation. This statement is false. The PSR states the names of other known victims, Wei Qui Xiang, Chao Hai Hua, Wang Mei Li, and Mu Ying. We therefore conclude the district court made no clear error by calculating a loss of $36,000 for Zheng's conspiracy and travel fraud convictions because the district court's loss calculation is supported by evidence that Zheng brought six women from China to Saipan to work as prostitutes and charged each of them $6,000. Zheng's second challenge to her sentence is that the district court's restitution order is improper. Zheng contends there is not any basis for the restitution calculations of $25,220 for Chi and $22,220 for Lian. The record belies Zheng's argument. Chi and Lian testified that they signed contracts to work in Saipan for $7.00 per hour. They worked ten months with no time off for evenings or weekends. The probation officer who prepared the PSR estimated they would have earned about $23,220 had they been paid regularly and earned overtime. Additionally, Lian and Chi each paid Zheng $6,000 in processing fees to go to the CNMI. Thus, Lian and Chi each estimated a total loss of $29,220. The probation officer then took into account money Lian and Chi received while working at the Tea House and subtracted that amount from the $29,220 total. A restitution order is reviewed for an abuse of discretion, provided that it is within the bounds of the statutory framework, and factual findings supporting an order of restitution are reviewed for clear error. United States v. Gordon, 393 F.3d 1044, 1051 (9th Cir.2004). The district court's valuation methodology is reviewed de novo. United States v. Doe, 374 F.3d 851, 854 (9th Cir.2004). Here, the district court used a sound valuation methodology. Zheng's contention that there is no basis in fact or methodology for restitution for Chi and Lian is without merit. Accordingly, we affirm the district court's restitution order.