United States of America v. Emeraldo Deguzman Lumaban

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
EMERALDO DEGUZMAN LUMABAN,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 14-50344
D.C. No. 3:13-cr-03617-W
MEMORANDUM*
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.
FILED
JUN 29 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 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.
14-50344 2

-- 2 of 2 --