
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Mark Anthony LOPEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 15-50515
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted December 7, 2016  Pasadena, California
    Filed December 19, 2016
    Aaron Paul Arnzen, Assistant U.S. Attorney, US Department of Justice, Southern District of California, San Diego, CA, Eric J. Beste, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Valerie Hsieh Chu, Esquire, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Helen H. Hong, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Nicole Ries Fox, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the US Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee
    John David Kirby, Attorney, Law Office of John D. Kirby, Attorney at Law, San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant
    Before: CALLAHAN, BEA, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Mark Anthony Lopez pleaded guilty to and was convicted of conspiracy to commit securities fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1349. At sentencing, the district court conducted restitution proceedings under the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3663A, Lopez appeals the district court’s restitution order. We affirm.

Lopez’s argument that the government failed to present evidence that his actions caused the losses to the shareholders fails. First, the government presented evidence that the volume of Unico stock increased tenfold due to Lopez’s fraud and the price of the stock decreased tenfold. The district court- did not abuse its discretion in inferring causation based on the fact that the extent of the dilution of Unico stock during the conspiracy period is exceptionally close, proportionally, to the decrease in share price over the same period.

Second, there is evidence that the “spikes in trading volume” were directly tied to the conspiracy. The government’s expert explained that these “spikes in volume” corresponded to a decline in price, which indicated “that there’s a dilution of shares; that there are so many more shares in the market, that the market maybe possibly cannot sustain a higher share price.”

Third, Lopez has failed to identify any countervailing facts that would undercut the theory that Lopez’s fraudulent actions caused the drop in share price. Neither Lopez nor his expert identified any specific, probative evidence of facts other than the dilution of Unico stock during the conspiracy period, that could make the district court’s determination regarding the cause of the damaging decrease in investors’ stock prices unreasonable.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
     