United States of America v. Bret Allen Riggin

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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
BRET ALLEN RIGGIN,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 12-30243
D.C. No. 2:11-cr-00169-WFN-1
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Washington
Wm. Fremming Nielsen, Senior District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 5, 2013**
Seattle, Washington
Before: ALARCÓN, McKEOWN, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
Bret Riggin pled guilty to theft of firearms from his employer, Sharp
Shooting Indoor Range and Gun Shop (“Sharp Shooting”), in violation of 18
U.S.C. §§ 922(u) and 924(i)(1) & (2). He stipulated in the plea agreement that
FILED
JUN 07 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 4 --

2
restitution would be paid to all victims of his crime, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 3663,
3663A and 3664. At the sentencing hearing, the district court ordered Riggin to
pay $35,458.53 to eight victims, including $28,558.24 to Sharp Shooting. Riggin
appeals from the restitution order on the ground that the district court failed to
determine that an internal eight-week audit Sharp Shooting conducted on its
accounts, at a cost of $19,118.21, was proximately caused by his conduct. We
affirm.
Under the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-132,
§§ 201-211, 110 Stat. 1227, (“MVRA”), a court must order a defendant to make
restitution to victims of certain specified offenses without considering the
defendant’s economic circumstances. 18 U.S.C. §§ 3663A(a)(1), 3664(f)(1)(A).
“Nothing in the MVRA or our case law requires that the district court consider
certain factors or make findings of fact on the record.” United States v. Peterson,
538 F.3d 1064, 1077 (9th Cir. 2008) (citing 18 U.S.C. § 3663A). The government
bears the burden of demonstrating the amount of the loss sustained by a victim as a
result of the offense, and the amount must be proved by a preponderance of the
evidence. 18 U.S.C. § 3664(e) (2000).
The government met its burden in this case. The government submitted to
the district court evidence sufficient to establish a causal chain between Riggin’s
firearms thefts and concomitant false log entries into Sharp Shooting’s inventory
tracking system, and the need for Sharp Shooting to conduct a comprehensive

-- 2 of 4 --

3
internal audit to determine the extent of the company’s losses. Special Agent
Christopher Smith of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms testified that
Riggin’s false log entries made the theft of the firearms “much more serious,
because . . . there was a question about the integrity of [Sharp Shooting’s] books
and . . . records . . . and at that point, it was incumbent on [the company] to go
through all of [its] records to make sure that . . . the integrity of the records was
there and that everything was correct.” Dkt. No. 70 at 13-14.
The district court ordered Riggin to pay a total of $28,558.24 to Sharp
Shooting, including $21,381.11 for employee time dedicated to conducting the
comprehensive internal, eight-week audit to determine the extent of the company’s
losses and confirm that no additional inventory was missing. The court concluded
that Sharp Shooting’s “requests [were] pretty well documented,” and “that the
request of that $28,000 figure has been developed through testimony. It appears to
be accurate.” Dkt. No. 70 at 101–02. As the district court noted, Riggin failed to
impeach S.A. Smith’s testimony regarding the need for Sharp Shooting to
undertake the internal eight-week audit.
Therefore, the government proved by a preponderance of the evidence that
the amount of the loss incurred by Sharp Shooting to conduct the internal audit was
proximately caused by Riggin’s conduct. Peterson, 538 F.3d at 1077–78; United
States v. Gordon, 393 F.3d 1044, 1057 (9th Cir. 2004); see also United States v.
Scott, 405 F.3d 615, 618 (7th Cir. 2005).

-- 3 of 4 --

4
AFFIRMED.

-- 4 of 4 --