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. Paul IFEJEH, aka Mr. P, Defendant-Appellant.
MEMORANDUM **
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; 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
AFFIRMED in part, VACATED in part, and REMANDED.
FOOTNOTES
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, Dkt. 43, is denied. Ifejeh’s unopposed motion for leave to file under seal, Dkt. 46, is granted.
Thank you for your feedback!
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. 18-50105
Decided: March 09, 2020
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)