USA V. EMERALDO LUMABAN, No. 14-50344 (9th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED JUN 29 2015 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, No. 14-50344 D.C. No. 3:13-cr-03617-W v. MEMORANDUM* EMERALDO DEGUZMAN LUMABAN, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Thomas J. Whelan, District Judge, Presiding Submitted June 22, 2015** Before: HAWKINS, GRABER, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges. Emeraldo Deguzman Lumaban appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the $20,064.93 restitution order imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for assault with a dangerous weapon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 113(a)(3). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Lumaban contends that the district court erred by imposing restitution because his conduct did not proximately cause the victims’ losses. In particular, he contends that the government failed to establish that the victims lost wages as a result of his assault, rather than because of their pre-existing, service-connected post-traumatic stress disorders. We review de novo the legality of a restitution order. See United States v. Luis, 765 F.3d 1061, 1065 (9th Cir. 2014). The government met its burden of proving that Lumaban’s assault proximately caused the victims’ losses. See United States v. Peterson, 538 F.3d 1064, 1075 (9th Cir. 2008) (“Defendant’s conduct need not be the sole cause of the loss . . . .”). Moreover, contrary to Lumaban’s contention, the record reflects that the losses were calculated with reasonable certainty. See United States v. Kennedy, 643 F.3d 1251, 1263 (9th Cir. 2011). AFFIRMED. 2 14-50344
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
