gno.law

United States v. Emeraldo Lumaban

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 14-50344 · 2015-06-29 · Unpublished

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Emeraldo Deguzman LUMABAN, Defendant-Appellant

Area
other
Panel
James S. Hawkins (author), Fletcher, Susan Graber

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

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 29 2015

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 14-50344 Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 3:13-cr-03617-W v. MEMORANDUM* EMERALDO DEGUZMAN LUMABAN, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Thomas J. Whelan, District Judge, Presiding Submitted June 22, 2015** Before: HAWKINS, GRABER, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.

Emeraldo Deguzman Lumaban appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the $20,064.93 restitution order imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for assault with a dangerous weapon, in violation of 18 U.S.C.

§ 113(a)(3). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Lumaban contends that the district court erred by imposing restitution because his conduct did not proximately cause the victims’ losses. In particular, he contends that the government failed to establish that the victims lost wages as a result of his assault, rather than because of their pre-existing, service-connected post-traumatic stress disorders. We review de novo the legality of a restitution order. See United States v. Luis, 765 F.3d 1061, 1065 (9th Cir. 2014). The government met its burden of proving that Lumaban’s assault proximately caused the victims’ losses. See United States v. Peterson, 538 F.3d 1064, 1075 (9th Cir.

2008) (“Defendant’s conduct need not be the sole cause of the loss . . . .”).

Moreover, contrary to Lumaban’s contention, the record reflects that the losses were calculated with reasonable certainty. See United States v. Kennedy, 643 F.3d 1251, 1263 (9th Cir. 2011).

AFFIRMED.

2 14-50344

Cites, in this corpus