United States v. Thomas Herbert Hale, Dba One Stop Wholesale

62 F.3d 1426 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Thomas Herbert HALE, dba One Stop Wholesale, Defendant-Appellant. No. 94-10569. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted Aug. 2, 1995. * Decided Aug. 8, 1995. Before: ALARCON, FERNANDEZ, and RYMER, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM ** 2 Thomas Herbert Hale appeals the order of restitution imposed following his plea of guilty to wire fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1343 . Hale claims the district court erred by ordering restitution in an amount higher than the losses resulting from the single crime to which he pleaded guilty. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1291 , and we affirm. 3 We review de novo the legality of a restitution order. United States v. McHenry, 974 F.2d 1031, 1033 (9th Cir. 1991). We review for clear error a district court's construction of a plea agreement. United States v. Read, 778 F.2d 1437, 1441 (9th Cir. 1985), cert.…