United States of America v. Connie Farris

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
CONNIE FARRIS,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 15-10297
D.C. No. 2:07-cr-00051-RLH-PAL
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Roger L. Hunt, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 14, 2017**
Before: GOODWIN, FARRIS, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
Connie Farris appeals pro se from the district court’s amended judgment,
entered following remand, lowering the restitution award to $1,930,843.12. We
have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm.
FILED
FEB 21 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 3 --

Farris contends that the district court erred in considering a number of
spreadsheets on which the government relied in its motion for restitution and
incorrectly determined the amount of restitution. We review for an abuse of
discretion. See United States v. Alvarado-Martinez, 556 F.3d 732, 735 (9th Cir.
2009) (district court’s evaluation of the reliability of evidence used at sentencing);
see also United States v. Fu Sheng Kuo, 620 F.3d 1158, 1162 (9th Cir. 2010)
(amount of restitution). The district court did not abuse its discretion in accepting
the spreadsheets proffered by the government, which had been admitted at trial
through stipulation with the defense, because these spreadsheets had sufficient
indicia of reliability. See Alvarado-Martinez, 556 F.3d at 735. Further, the district
court did not abuse its discretion in determining that $1,930,843.12 represented a
reasonable estimate of the loss to Farris’s victims, based on the facts in the record.
See United States v. Doe, 488 F.3d 1154, 1160 (9th Cir. 2007).
Farris also contends that her due process rights were violated under Brady v.
Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), because the government failed to produce certain
claim forms and other documents at sentencing. We review for plain error, United
States v. Houston, 648 F.3d 806, 813 (9th Cir. 2011), and conclude that there was
none. Farris has failed to demonstrate that any allegedly withheld documents were
material such that had they been disclosed, the result of the proceeding would have
15-10297 2

-- 2 of 3 --

been different. See United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667, 682 (1985).
We decline to consider arguments raised for the first time in Farris’s reply
brief. See United States v. Mejia-Pimental, 477 F.3d 1100, 1105 n.9 (9th Cir.
2007).
Farris’s “motion of conflict of interest and deliberate indifference” and her
supplement to that motion are denied.
Farris’s motion for status of case is denied as moot.
AFFIRMED.
15-10297 3

-- 3 of 3 --