Opinion
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION. (See Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 36-3)
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii; Helen Gillmor, District Judge, Presiding.
Craig H. Nakamura, Asst U.S. Atty., United States Attorney, Honolulu, HI, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Georgia K. McMillen, Wailuku, HI, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before BEEZER, HALL and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Arlene Estacion appeals the restitution order imposed under the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 3663A-3664, following her guilty plea to three counts of mail fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3742, and we affirm.
Relying upon United States v. Gunning, 339 F.3d 948, 950 (9th Cir.2003) (per curiam), Estacion contends that the district court plainly erred by delegating to the probation office the responsibility of determining the manner and schedule of her restitution payments. We reject this contention because we conclude that the district court's order did not assign full control of this determination to the probation office. Cf. id. (remanding because the district court assigned "full control" of the restitution payment schedule to a probation officer).
Estacion also contends that the district court plainly erred by failing to take account of her financial resources, projected earnings and financial obligations in setting the restitution schedule. This contention is without merit. The record shows that the district court properly considered these factors in specifying the schedule of
Page 321.
payments. See United States v. Booth, 309 F.3d 566, 576 (9th Cir.2002).
AFFIRMED.