United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT June 29, 2007
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 06-10509
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
CORY I. PARIS,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 3:05-CR-10-ALL
Before JONES, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Cory I. Paris challenges his sentence following his
guilty plea conviction for six counts of wire fraud, one count of
bank fraud, and three counts of transportation of stolen goods in
interstate commerce. Paris argues that the district court failed
to follow the application notes to U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1 when it
considered that the eBay sales prices underrepresented the retail
value of the items sold on eBay. He asserts that the eBay sales
price was the fair market value upon which the district court
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that
this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except
under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
should have based its estimate of the amount of loss related to the
items sold on eBay.
Because Paris did not raise this argument in the district
court, we review for plain error. United States v. Villegas, 404
F.3d 355, 358 (5th Cir. 2005). Paris has cited no relevant
authority showing that when stolen items are sold on eBay, the
district court must base its loss estimation only on the eBay sales
price. Accordingly, Paris has not shown that the district court
erred, plainly or otherwise, in its method of estimating the amount
of loss.
Paris states that “due to the court’s failure to follow
the policy statement of the guidelines in computing the fair market
value of the loss, it neglected to consider his personal property
as a credit against the loss.” He has not adequately briefed any
argument about credit against losses and any such argument is
deemed abandoned. See United States v. Thames, 214 F.3d 608, 612
n.3 (5th Cir. 2000); United States v. Valdiosera-Godinez, 932 F.2d
1093, 1099 (5th Cir. 1991). Similarly, Paris has not adequately
briefed and, thus, has abandoned any argument regarding the
district court’s factual findings of the amount of loss. To the
extent Paris makes such arguments adequately for the first time in
his reply brief, we decline to address them. See United States v.
Aguirre-Villa 460 F.3d 681, 683 n.2 (5th Cir. 2006).
AFFIRMED.
2