United States of America v. Dezirae Dawn Lighthizer

18-30232Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJun 14, 2019

Full text

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
DEZIRAE DAWN LIGHTHIZER,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 18-30232
D.C. No. 4:18-cr-00016-BMM-1
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Montana
Brian M. Morris, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 11, 2019**
Before: CANBY, GRABER, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Dezirae Dawn Lighthizer appeals from the district court’s judgment and
challenges the $4,500 order of restitution imposed following her guilty-plea
conviction for counterfeiting obligations or securities of the United States, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 471. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and
* 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). Accordingly, Lighthizer’s
request for oral argument is denied.
FILED
JUN 14 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 18-30232
we affirm.
Lighthizer contends that the district court erred by finding that she caused
the losses suffered by several of the victims for whom she was ordered to pay
restitution. We review the amount of a restitution award for abuse of discretion,
and the factual findings supporting an order of restitution for clear error. See
United States v. Galan, 804 F.3d 1287, 1289 (9th Cir. 2015). The district court
heard testimony from a law enforcement agent linking each of the transactions for
which restitution was ordered to the serial numbers of the counterfeit bills that
Lighthizer admittedly placed into circulation. On this record, the district court did
not clearly err in finding that Lighthizer caused the losses, and it did not abuse its
discretion by ordering Lighthizer to pay $4,500 in restitution. See United States v.
De La Fuente, 353 F.3d 766, 772-73 (9th Cir. 2003).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --

Continue your research in ChatGPT or Claude

Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.