FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FEB 27 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 13-30081
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 2:12-cr-00023-RSM
v.
MEMORANDUM*
CHARLES DEVILLE NASH,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
Ricardo S. Martinez, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 18, 2014**
Before: ALARCÓN, O’SCANNLAIN, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
Charles Deville Nash appeals from the district court’s judgment and
challenges the restitution order imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for
human trafficking, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1590. We have jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Contrary to the government’s contention, Nash’s challenge to the district
court’s restitution order is not barred by the appeal waiver in the plea agreement
because the agreement does not contain an estimate of the restitution amount. See
United States v. Tsosie, 639 F.3d 1213, 1218 (9th Cir. 2011).
Nash contends that there was no evidence of ill-gotten gain or monetary loss
to the victims. The relevant statute, however, provides that the restitution order
should compensate “the full amount of the victim’s losses” and that such losses
may be equivalent to “the gross income or value to the defendant of the victim’s
services or labor.” 18 U.S.C. § 1593(b)(1), (3).
Nash further contends that the district court erred by relying on the grand
jury testimony of the victims to calculate the restitution amounts of $117,000 to
victim A.M. and $100,500 to victim J.D., and by allegedly including periods
during which the victims could not have been under Nash’s control. We review
the factual findings supporting a restitution order for clear error and the district
court’s valuation methodology de novo. See United States v. Berger, 473 F.3d
1080, 1104 (9th Cir. 2007). The district court did not err by relying on the victims’
sworn statements and the corroborating extrinsic evidence to establish the amounts
earned and the time periods during which the victims were under Nash’s control.
The district court appropriately “estimate[d], based upon facts in the record,” the
2 13-30081
victims’ losses “with some reasonable certainty.” United States v. Doe, 488 F.3d
1154, 1160 (9th Cir. 2007).
Finally, Nash’s contention that the restitution is disproportionate to his
conduct lacks merit. See United States v. Dubose, 146 F.3d 1141, 1145 (9th Cir.
1998) (“Where the amount of restitution is geared directly to the amount of the
victim’s loss caused by the defendant’s illegal activity, proportionality is already
built into the order.” (internal quotations omitted)).
AFFIRMED.
3 13-30081