FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
APR 25 2016
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 14-10256
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No.
1:12-cr-00039-LJO-BAM-1
v.
RANDY LEE WILKINS, MEMORANDUM*
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Lawrence J. O'Neill, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted April 14, 2016*
San Francisco, California
Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge and REINHARDT and CHRISTEN, Circuit
Judges.
Randy Wilkins appeals his conviction and sentence for conspiracy to
commit wire and bank fraud, wire fraud, and bank fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
§§ 1349, 1343, and 1344. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we
reverse in part, affirm in part, and remand.
I
Because Wilkins elected to preemptively introduce his prior conviction on
direct examination, he waived any right to challenge the admission of his prior
conviction. See United States v. Decoud, 456 F.3d 996, 1011 (9th Cir. 2006).
II
The district court did not plainly err by ordering Wilkins to pay $736,965.40
in restitution as required by the Mandatory Victim Restitution Act of 1996
(“MVRA”). 18 U.S.C. §§ 3663A, 3664.
The district court did not plainly err by calculating the amount of loss
attributable to Wilkins. “Nothing in the MVRA or our case law requires that the
district court consider certain factors or make findings of fact on the record.”
United States v. Peterson, 538 F.3d 1064, 1077 (9th Cir. 2008). The presentence
report’s loss calculation relied on a report prepared by the government’s
investigating agent that was included in the presentence report as Attachment A.
This report contained an itemized list of the properties and loss amounts for private
and institutional lenders. The court included a copy of the report in its judgment.
Thus, the record indicates that the court relied on this report and the corresponding
2
testimony at trial in reaching its conclusion as to the amount of the restitution. See
id. at 1077–78. Moreover, Wilkins has not shown how the report’s calculation
without the benefit of Robers v. United States, 134 S. Ct. 1854 (2014) prejudiced
him.
The district court also did not plainly err by failing to expressly specify that
Wilkins’s restitution liability is joint and several. Under 18 U.S.C. § 3664(h), a
court issuing a restitution order is permitted to apportion liability among
defendants according to culpability or capacity to pay, or, in the alternative, make
each defendant liable for the full amount of restitution. This provision “gives the
court the discretion either to make multiple defendants jointly and severally liable
for payment of the full restitution award, or to apportion the restitution order
among the various defendants.” S.Rep. No. 104–179, at 15 (1996), reprinted in
1996 U.S.C.C.A.N. 924, 928.
In this case, the record reflects that the district court intended to impose joint
and several liability on Wilkins. The district court designated the liability as joint
and several on Wilkins’s co-conspirator’s restitution order. The district court also
made specific reference to Wilkins and his district court docket number on
Wilkins’s co-conspirator’s restitution order.
III
3
The district court did not plainly err by ordering forfeiture of $736,965.40.
“The district court must impose criminal forfeiture in the amount of the ‘proceeds’
of the crime.” United States v. Newman, 659 F.3d 1235, 1239 (9th Cir. 2011). The
proceeds of a “fraudulently obtained loan equal the amount of the loan” and, in a
conspiracy, the proceeds “equal the total amount of the loans obtained by the
conspiracy as a whole.” Id. at 1244.
Wilkins committed bank fraud and wire fraud when he obtained loans from
institutional lenders through falsified loan applications. Wilkins used these
fraudulently obtained loans to purchase properties that served as collateral for
obtaining additional loans from private lenders. These additional loans were not
disclosed to the institutional lenders or used as represented by Wilkins to private
lenders. Thus, the district court did not plainly err by determining that the
proceeds of Wilkins’s fraudulent activity included loans from private lenders.
IV
Wilkins’s sentence was not procedurally flawed or substantively
unreasonable. The district court did not err procedurally. It correctly calculated
the Sentencing Guidelines range; considered and explicitly referenced the 18
U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors on the record; and adequately explained the
sentence. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 991–93 (9th Cir. 2008). A
4
district court’s explanation for a sentence will be “legally sufficient” if the “record
makes clear that the sentencing judge listened to each argument and considered the
supporting evidence.” United States v. Sandoval–Orellana, 714 F.3d 1174, 1181
(9th Cir.2013) (quoting Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 358 (2007)).
The district court did not err substantively when imposing different
sentencing between Wilkins and his co-conspirator. See United States v. Chhun,
744 F.3d 1110, 1123–24 (9th Cir. 2014). The court explained that Wilkins’s co-
conspirator could be expected to receive a lesser sentence because he cooperated
with authorities in the investigation, did not engage in obstruction or perjury, and
suffered from major medical issues. The court further noted that Wilkins was the
leader of the conspiracy.
V
The district court plainly erred by imposing on Wilkins supervised release
conditions relating to alcohol use, drug and alcohol testing, and participation in a
substance abuse treatment program. There is no evidence that at the time of
sentencing Wilkins had an alcohol or substance abuse problem. See United States
v. Betts, 511 F.3d 872, 877–78 (9th Cir. 2007). Accordingly, we vacate the special
conditions five, six, and seven and remand to the district court with directions to
omit the conditions.
5
AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED.
6