United States Ninth Circuit

Defendants' convictions for mail, wire, and honest services fraud are affirmed where are affirmed where their proposed jury instruction on "intent to defraud" was not supported by law and the jury instructions that were given adequately covered their lack of intent defense theory. However, their sentences and a restitution order are vacated where: 1) the district court improperly relied on an Application Note to calculate the loss that resulted from the fraud; and 2) it was unclear whether the restitution amount was based on what was actually lost by the victims of the fraud.

Appellate Information

• Argued 01/10/2008
• Decided 05/13/2008
• Published 05/14/2008

Judges

• HOLLAND, District Judge:, Before:  JEROME FARRIS and MILAN D. SMITH, JR., Circuit Judges, and H. RUSSEL HOLLAND, District Judge.

Court

• United States Ninth Circuit

Counsel

• For Appellees:
  
• Jerald L. Brainin Esq., Los Angeles, CA;  H. Dean Steward Esq., for Defendants-Appellants., Andrew Stolper Esq., Assistant United States Attorney, Santa Ana, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.