Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ASHLEY BONAIR CHAMBERS, Defendant - Appellant.
MEMORANDUM*
Ashley Bonair Chambers appeals from the district court's judgment and challenges his jury-trial conviction and 30-month sentence for bank fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1344; wire fraud affecting a financial institution, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343; and conspiracy to commit bank fraud and wire fraud affecting a financial institution, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1349. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Chambers contends that the district court erred by refusing to instruct the jury to determine the amount of loss resulting from each of his convictions. We review de novo. See United States v. Cortes, 757 F.3d 850, 857 (9th Cir. 2014). Because the loss amount calculations affected neither the statutory maximum nor any mandatory minimum sentence applicable to Chambers's convictions, the district court was not required to submit them to the jury. See United States v. Vallejos, 742 F.3d 902, 906-07 (9th Cir. 2014). The district court appropriately exercised its discretion to determine the loss amount during sentencing, pursuant to the advisory Guidelines. See United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 233 (2005).
Chambers's second motion for reconsideration of the court's order declining to entertain his pro se motion to intervene is denied. The arguments contained in Chambers's pro se motions filed on January 13, 2016, and February 4, 2016, have been considered and do not change the result in this case.
AFFIRMED.
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: No. 15-30116
Decided: June 02, 2016
Court: United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)