Lucas

MEMORANDUM ***

I

The district court did not clearly err in calculating the amount of loss attributable to Lucas. United States v. Matsumaru, 244 F.3d 1092, 1106 (9th Cir.2001). In calculating the amount of monetary loss that results from fraud, “the loss need not be determined with precision. The court need only make a reasonable estimate of the loss, given the available information.” United States v. King, 246 F.3d 1166 , 2001 WL 363673 (9th Cir., Apr.13, 2001) (unpaginated) (quoting USSG § 2F1.1, cmt. n. 9). Furthermore, “[c]onduct that is not formally charged or is not an element of the offense of conviction may enter into the determination of the applicable guideline sentencing range.” USSG § 1B1.3, cmt. (backg’d). Such uncharged conduct must be proven by a preponderance of the evidence. United States v. Lawrence, 189 F.3d 838, 844 (9th Cir.1999). Here, there was ample evidence in the Presentence Report that Lucas, in conjunction with his co-defendant Fatima Peyton and his brother David Lucas, had procured and/or used multiple fraudulent American Express cards beyond the three cards that formed the basis of his guilty plea.

II

Lucas’s argument that the district court…