United States v. Richard Sihner

Ninth Circuit

United States v. Richard Sihner

697 F. App'x 510

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedSeptember 7, 2017

Docket16-10202

StatusUnpublished

This text of 697 F. App'x 510 (United States v. Richard Sihner) 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. Richard Sihner, 697 F. App'x 510 (9th Cir. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM ***

Richard Sihner appeals his conviction for making material false statements to federal agents, an order imposing restitution in the amount of $78,000, and a sentencing enhancement for obstruction of justice.

The special verdict form did not constructively amend the indictment because it did not alter the terms of the indictment. United States v. Ward, 747 F.3d 1184, 1189 (9th Cir. 2014).

Trial counsel’s performance was not deficient for failing to object to the special verdict form because the special verdict form did not constructively amend the indictment, and it correctly reflected that either false statement was sufficient to convict Sihner. See United States v. UCO Oil Co., 546 F.2d 833, 838 (9th Cir. 1976). Counsel is not deficient for failing to raise *511 a meritless objection. See Rupe v. Wood, 93 F.3d 1434, 1445 (9th Cir. 1996).

Even if there was insufficient evidence to find Sihner made one false statement, the error was harmless because the jury found Sihner made both false statements. United States v. Plascencia-Orozco, 852 F.3d 910, 916 (9th Cir. 2017).

The restitution order may be summarily affirmed because Sihner provided an insufficient record to review the issue. In re O’Brien, 312 F.3d 1135, 1137 (9th Cir. 2002). Moreover, the district court did not clearly err in calculating the amount of payments made to Sihner. See United States v. Sarno, 73 F.3d 1470, 1503 (9th Cir. 1995) (“We review ... the factual findings underpinning [restitution] orders for clear error.”). The court may rely on hearsay evidence at sentencing, and Sihner has failed to demonstrate that such reliance was improper here. See United States v. Petty, 982 F.2d 1365, 1370 (9th Cir. 1993) (hearsay may be considered at sentencing as long as it bears some minimal indicia of reliability).

Based on the above conclusions, Sihner’s argument that the district court erred when it imposed a sentencing enhancement for obstruction of justice is without merit.

AFFIRMED.

***

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

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

MEMORANDUM ***

Richard Sihner appeals his conviction for making material false statements to federal agents, an order imposing restitution in the amount of $78,000, and a sentencing enhancement for obstruction of justice.

The special verdict form did not constructively amend the indictment because it did not alter the terms of the indictment. United States v. Ward, 747 F.3d 1184, 1189 (9th Cir. 2014).

Trial counsel’s performance was not deficient for failing to object to the special verdict form because the special verdict form did not constructively amend the indictment, and it correctly reflected that either false statement was sufficient to convict Sihner. See United States v. UCO Oil Co., 546 F.2d 833, 838 (9th Cir. 1976). Counsel is not deficient for failing to raise *511 a meritless objection. See Rupe v. Wood, 93 F.3d 1434, 1445 (9th Cir. 1996).

Even if there was insufficient evidence to find Sihner made one false statement, the error was harmless because the jury found Sihner made both false statements. United States v. Plascencia-Orozco, 852 F.3d 910, 916 (9th Cir. 2017).

The restitution order may be summarily affirmed because Sihner provided an insufficient record to review the issue. In re O’Brien, 312 F.3d 1135, 1137 (9th Cir. 2002). Moreover, the district court did not clearly err in calculating the amount of payments made to Sihner. See United States v. Sarno, 73 F.3d 1470, 1503 (9th Cir. 1995) (“We review ... the factual findings underpinning [restitution] orders for clear error.”). The court may rely on hearsay evidence at sentencing, and Sihner has failed to demonstrate that such reliance was improper here. See United States v. Petty, 982 F.2d 1365, 1370 (9th Cir. 1993) (hearsay may be considered at sentencing as long as it bears some minimal indicia of reliability).

Based on the above conclusions, Sihner’s argument that the district court erred when it imposed a sentencing enhancement for obstruction of justice is without merit.

AFFIRMED.

***

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

697 F. App'x 510, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-richard-sihner-ca9-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack