MEMORANDUM **

Nicholaus Saint'James appeals the district court’s judgment ordering $5,000 in *349 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.