USA V. PATRICK THOMAS, No. 13-30294 (9th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 24 2015 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, No. 13-30294 D.C. No. 4:13-cr-00038-DLC v. MEMORANDUM* PATRICK CHARLES THOMAS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Montana Dana L. Christensen, Chief Judge, Presiding Submitted February 17, 2015** Before: O’SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges. Patrick Charles Thomas appeals from the district court’s judgment awarding restitution to the government in the amount of $162,865.36, following Thomas’s guilty-plea conviction for conversion of secured property, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 658. 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). Thomas contends that the district court erred by awarding restitution based on the value of properties converted by him because the government subsequently forgave payment on the loans for which the properties served as collateral, pursuant to a settlement reached in Keepseagle v. Vilsak. We need not reach this issue because Thomas has admitted that he did not meet the requirements under the Keepseagle settlement. The government has recently obtained a civil judgment against Thomas, based on the court’s finding that Thomas made a fraudulent Keepseagle claim. See United States v. Thomas, No. 4:13-cv-00094-BMM (D. Mont. 2014). We have reviewed Thomas’s pro se supplemental brief and decline to consider Thomas’s claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel because the record is insufficiently developed to evaluate that claim on direct appeal, and Thomas’s legal representation was not so inadequate as to obviously deny his right to counsel. See United States v. Rahman, 642 F.3d 1257, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 2011). Thomas’s remaining contentions lack merit. AFFIRMED. 2 13-30294
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.
