FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
DEC 19 2016
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 15-50515
Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No.
3:12-cr-05236-GPC-1
v.
MARK ANTHONY LOPEZ, MEMORANDUM*
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Gonzalo P. Curiel, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 7, 2016**
Pasadena, California
Before: CALLAHAN, BEA, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
Mark Anthony Lopez pleaded guilty to and was convicted of conspiracy to
commit securities fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1349. At sentencing, the
district court conducted restitution proceedings under the Mandatory Victims
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Restitution Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3663A. Lopez appeals the district court’s restitution
order. We affirm.
Lopez’s argument that the government failed to present evidence that his
actions caused the losses to the shareholders fails. First, the government presented
evidence that the volume of Unico stock increased tenfold due to Lopez’s fraud
and the price of the stock decreased tenfold. The district court did not abuse its
discretion in inferring causation based on the fact that the extent of the dilution of
Unico stock during the conspiracy period is exceptionally close, proportionally, to
the decrease in share price over the same period.
Second, there is evidence that the “spikes in trading volume” were directly
tied to the conspiracy. The government’s expert explained that these “spikes in
volume” corresponded to a decline in price, which indicated “that there’s a dilution
of shares; that there are so many more shares in the market, that the market maybe
possibly cannot sustain a higher share price.”
Third, Lopez has failed to identify any countervailing facts that would
undercut the theory that Lopez’s fraudulent actions caused the drop in share price.
Neither Lopez nor his expert identified any specific, probative evidence of facts
other than the dilution of Unico stock during the conspiracy period, that could
2
make the district court’s determination regarding the cause of the damaging
decrease in investors’ stock prices unreasonable.
AFFIRMED.
3