United States v. Rohit Reddy

710 F. App'x 329
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
DecidedJanuary 29, 2018
Docket16-30312
StatusUnpublished

This text of 710 F. App'x 329 (United States v. Rohit Reddy) 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. Rohit Reddy, 710 F. App'x 329 (9th Cir. 2018).

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Rohit Reddy appeals the 14-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for SNAP benefit fraud in violation of 7 U.S.C. § 2024. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Reddy contends that the district court violated his right to due process by relying on the Guidelines’ instruction to make “a reasonable estimate” of the loss caused by his fraud without specifying the methodology it used to establish its estimate. See U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1 cmt. n.3(C). We disagree. The record reflects that the court explained its methodology for determining loss, and that its methodology was reasonable. Even assuming that the court’s calculation had to be supported by clear and convincing evidence, see United States v. Mezas de Jesus, 217 F.3d 638, 642 (9th Cir. 2000) (clear and convincing standard applies “when a sentencing factor has an extremely disproportionate effect on the sentence relative to the offense of conviction” (internal quotations omitted)), the record shows that it was. The court did not clearly err in its loss calculation, see United States v. Garro, 517 F.3d 1163, 1167 (9th Cir. 2008), or violate Reddy’s due process rights, see United States v. Christensen, 732 F.3d 1094, 1106 (9th Cir. 2013) (“To establish that his due process rights were violated, [a defendant] must show that materially false or unreliable information was demonstrably made the basis for the sentence imposed by the district court.”).

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

Related

United States v. Pedro Mezas De Jesus
217 F.3d 638 (Ninth Circuit, 2000)
United States v. Garro
517 F.3d 1163 (Ninth Circuit, 2008)
United States v. Collins Christensen
732 F.3d 1094 (Ninth Circuit, 2013)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
710 F. App'x 329, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-rohit-reddy-ca9-2018.