United States of America v. Patrick Charles Thomas

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
PATRICK CHARLES THOMAS,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 13-30294
D.C. No. 4:13-cr-00038-DLC
MEMORANDUM*
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.
FILED
FEB 24 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 --

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.
13-30294 2

-- 2 of 2 --