United States v. Smith

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 25-2177 · 2026-02-23 · Unpublished

Proceeding: appeal
Trial court: United States District Court for the Southern District of California
Trial judge: Todd W. Robinson (district judge)
Outcome: affirmed — AFFIRMED.
Area: civil

Analysis

No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 23 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 25-2177 D.C. No. Plaintiff - Appellee, 3:22-cr-02607-TWR-3 v. MEMORANDUM* RAMONT JOSEPH SMITH, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Todd W. Robinson, District Judge, Presiding Submitted February 18, 2026** Before: CALLAHAN, FRIEDLAND, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.

Ramont Joseph Smith appeals from the district court’s order modifying his restitution payment schedule. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.

Reviewing for abuse of discretion, see United States v. Inouye, 821 F.3d 1152, 1155 (9th Cir. 2016), we affirm.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Smith contends the district court abused its discretion by modifying his restitution order to require payment of $750 per month. He argues that the court selected this amount without considering his ability to pay and to punish his past non-compliance with restitution payments.

The district court did not abuse its discretion. It properly selected the payment amount based on the financial information Smith provided. See 18 U.S.C.

§ 3664(f)(2). The court acknowledged that the payment schedule required Smith to pay over 10% of his monthly gross income, which the court understood “may hurt from a financial sense.” It nevertheless believed it was an amount Smith could meet. Because this conclusion is not illogical or implausible in light of the record, the court did not abuse its discretion. See Inouye, 821 F.3d at 1156.

AFFIRMED.

2 25-2177