Opinion
No. 05-50120.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a)(2).
Filed April 15, 2010.
Becky S. Walker, Esq., Curtis A. Kin, Esq., Office of the U.S. Attorney Criminal Division, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Jerry Kaplan, Esq., Kaplan, Kenegos Kadin, Beverly Hills, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Alicemarie H. Stotler, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. 02-cr-00344-AHS.
Before: RYMER, McKEOWN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
John Walter Temple appeals from the restitution order imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for mail fraud and aiding and abetting, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2 and 1341. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Temple contends the district court erred by failing to acknowledge its discretion under 18 U.S.C. § 3664(h) to apportion liability between Temple and his co-defendant. The record shows that the district court did not err in this regard. See United States v. Booth, 309 F.3d 566, 576 (9th Cir. 2002); see also United States v. Mills, 991 F.2d 609, 611-12 (9th Cir. 1993). Further, the district court did not abuse its discretion by holding Temple jointly and severally liable with his co-defendant for the total amount of restitution. See Booth, 309 F.3d at 576; see also § 3664(h).
AFFIRMED.