United States v. Paul Ifejeh ( 2020 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 9 2020
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 18-50105
Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No.
2:07-cr-01402-SJO-18
v.
PAUL IFEJEH, AKA Mr. P, MEMORANDUM*
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
S. James Otero, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 5, 2020**
Pasadena, California
Before: NGUYEN, HURWITZ, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Paul Ifejeh appeals the sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to conspiracy
to commit mail and wire fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 371, 1341, and 1343.
Ifejeh was sentenced to three years in prison and three years of supervised release;
*
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).
he was also ordered to pay $1,201,166.33 in restitution. We affirm in part, vacate in
part, and remand.
1. The district court did not clearly err in ordering Ifejeh to pay
$1,201,166.33 in restitution. See United States v. Peterson, 538 F.3d 1064, 1074
(9th Cir. 2008) (stating standard of review).1 The court was required to award
restitution to “any person directly harmed by the defendant’s criminal conduct in the
course of the scheme, conspiracy, or pattern.” 18 U.S.C. § 3663A(a)(2). The district
court reasonably found that Ifejeh was responsible for victim losses on or after
August 3, 2005, and it adopted the presentence report’s undisputed calculation of
those losses. See United States v. Ameline, 409 F.3d 1073, 1085 (9th Cir. 2005) (en
banc) (“[T]he district court may rely on undisputed statements in the PSR at
sentencing.”). No further factfinding was required. See Peterson, 538 F.3d at 1077.
2. As the government concedes, the district court erred in imposing
conditions of supervised release five, six, and fourteen. See United States v. Evans,
883 F.3d 1154, 1162–64 (9th Cir. 2018). We vacate those conditions and remand to
allow the court to impose any alternative conditions it deems appropriate. See
United States v. Ped, 943 F.3d 427, 434 (9th Cir. 2019).2
1
We assume without deciding that Ifejeh preserved his challenge to the
restitution order.
2
The government’s motion to strike portions of Ifejeh’s opening brief and
excerpts of record, Dkt. 37, is granted. Ifejeh’s motion to supplement the record,
2
AFFIRMED in part, VACATED in part, and REMANDED.
Dkt. 43, is denied. Ifejeh’s unopposed motion for leave to file under seal, Dkt. 46,
is granted.
3