United States v. Richard Ross

MEMORANDUM

1. Ross argues that restitution was inappropriate because this case involved too many victims and required the “deter-min[ation] [of] complex issues of fact.” 18 U.S.C. § 3663A(c)(3). In his plea deal, Ross “specifically agree[d] to make restitution to the victims in an .amount to be determined at sentencing,” and waived any right to appeal his sentence. While Ross may appeal the amount of restitution awarded, see United States v. Tsosie, 639 F.3d 1213, 1218 (9th Cir.2011); he has knowingly waived his right to appeal the district court’s decision to award restitution in the first place. Even if Ross did not waive his right to appeal the district court’s decision to award restitution, the district court didn’t abuse its discretion when it decided that 18 U.S.C. § 3663A(c)(3) did not preclude the restitution award.

2. Ross claims there is a variety of inconsistencies in the spreadsheet the district court relied on to calculate restitution. Because he failed to flag these discrepancies below, we review for plain - error. Even assuming that the spreadsheet contains every transcription and computation error he alleges, Ross fails to establish that these errors affect his…