United States v. Ashley Chambers

653 F. App'x 864
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
DecidedJune 2, 2016
Docket15-30116
StatusUnpublished

This text of 653 F. App'x 864 (United States v. Ashley Chambers) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States v. Ashley Chambers, 653 F. App'x 864 (9th Cir. 2016).

Opinion

MEMORANDUM *

Ashley Bonair Chambers appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges his jury-trial conviction and 30-month sentence for bank fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1344; wire fraud affecting a financial institution, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343; and conspiracy to commit bank fraud and wire fraud affecting a financial institution, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1349. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Chambers contends that the district court erred by refusing to instruct the jury to determine the amount of loss resulting from each of his convictions. We review de novo. See United States v. Cortes, 757 F.3d 850, 857 (9th Cir.2014), Because the loss amount calculations affected neither the statutory maximum nor any mandatory minimum sentence applicable to Chambers’s convictions, the district court was not required to submit them to the jury. See United States v. Vallejos, 742 F.3d 902, 906-07 (9th Cir.2014). The district court appropriately exercised its discretion to determine the loss amount during sentencing, pursuant to the advisory Guidelines. See United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 233, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005).

Chambers’s second motion for reconsideration of the court’s order declining to entertain his pro se motion to intervene is denied. The arguments contained in Chambers’s pro se motions filed on January 13, 2016, and February 4, 2016, have been considered and do not change the result in this case.

AFFIRMED.

*

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

United States v. Booker
543 U.S. 220 (Supreme Court, 2004)
United States v. Eric Vallejos
742 F.3d 902 (Ninth Circuit, 2014)
United States v. Jorge Cortes
757 F.3d 850 (Ninth Circuit, 2014)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
653 F. App'x 864, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-ashley-chambers-ca9-2016.