United States v. Miller

MEMORANDUM **

Christopher Dee Miller appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for fraudulent transactions with access device, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1029 (a)(5). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We affirm the restitution order and remand the sentence.

Miller contends that the district court erred by including a $73,491.17 amount of loss in his restitution order. Because Miller did not object to the restitution order in the district court, we review for plain error, see United States v. Zink, 107 F.3d 716, 718 (9th Cir.1997), and conclude that the district court properly relied on evidence submitted by the government to determine the amount of restitution required. See 18 U.S.C. § 3664 (e) (“Any dispute as to the proper amount or type of restitution shall be resolved by the court by the preponderance of the evidence.”); see also United States v. Rutgard, 116 F.3d 1270, 1294 (9th Cir.1997) (stating that restitution may be ordered for losses to persons harmed by defendant’s scheme even beyond the counts of conviction); see, e.g. United States v. Bussell, 414 F.3d 1048, 1060 (9th Cir.2005) (stating that orders of restitution are…