
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Nicholaus Saint JAMES, a.k.a. Semaj Carter, a.k.a. DJ Necterr, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 14-50152.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Sept. 21, 2015.
    
    Filed Sept. 28, 2015.
    Jean-Claude Andre, Assistant U.S., Allen W. Chiu, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, Stephen Todd Merrill, Special Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Riverside, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Jeffrey A. Aaron, Esquire, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Riverside, CA, Matthew Brady Larsen, Deputy Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: REINHARDT, LEAVY, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App, P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Nicholaus Saint'James appeals the district court’s judgment ordering $5,000 in restitution to Amos Wallace under 18 U.S.C. § 3668A. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Saint James contends that the district court erred by basing the award of restitution ■ to Wallace on hearsay information contained in the presentence report (“PSR”). The parties dispute the standard of review but we need not decide that issue because under any standard, the district court did not err.' Saint James did not object to information in the PSR concerning his fraud on Wallace. Thus, the district court properly relied on that information in ordering restitution. See United States v. Ameline, 409 F.3d 1073, 1085 (9th Cir.2005) (en banc) (district court may rely on undisputed statements in the PSR at sentencing); United States v. Petty, 982 F.2d 1365, 1370 (9th Cir.1993) (hearsay may be considered at sentencing as long as it bears “minimal indicia of reliability”).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     