Salimova

United States v. Salimova

Good Law
44 F. App'x 280
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitAugust 16, 2002No. 00-50703; D.C. No. CR-97-01258-RSWLCalifornia299 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Gioulnara Salimova appeals her sentence imposed following our remand in her prior appeal, No. 98-50502. Salimova has completed serving the custodial portion of her sentence. Salimova’s attorney has filed a brief and a motion to withdraw as counsel of record pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 , 87 S.Ct. 1396 , 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Salimova has not filed a pro se supplemental brief.

Counsel identifies the potential issue of whether the district court’s restitution order is authorized by the restitution statute, 18 U.S.C. § 3663A. We conclude that the district court was permitted to include losses beyond those of the offenses of conviction because Salimova was convicted of participating in a scheme to defraud banks, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1344 . See United States v. Johnson, 132 F.3d 1279, 1286-87 (9th Cir.1997) (stating that § 3663A(a)(2) authorizes restitution for losses beyond the offense of conviction where the offense includes an element of a scheme, conspiracy or pattern of criminal conduct). The evidence was sufficient, for purposes of sentencing, to support the district court’s finding that these other losses *281 were connected to the…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.