United States Ninth Circuit

In a prosecution of defendants, who subsidized down payments to home buyers and then submitted misleading gift letters to HUD falsely stating that a family member or friend of the buyer had provided the money for the down payment, their resulting convictions are affirmed where: 1) although it would be preferable for district courts to use a definition of materiality tracking the language approved by the Supreme Court in US v. Gaudin, 515 U.S. 506 (1995), in this case, the district court did not commit plain error by giving the jury instruction it did; 2) the false gift letters and the source of the down payment for HUD-insured loans were material to HUD; and 3) defendants' actions were the actual and proximate cause of HUD's losses, and a restitution order for the full amount of its loss was proper.

Appellate Information

• Argued 06/12/2008
• Decided 08/13/2008
• Published 08/13/2008

Judges

• TROTT, Circuit Judge:, Before: STEPHEN S. TROTT, KIM McLANE WARDLAW, and RAYMOND C. FISHER, Circuit Judges.

Court

• United States Ninth Circuit

Counsel

• For Appellees:
  
• William J. Genego, Jr., Nasatir, Hirsch, Podberesky, & Genego, Santa Monica, CA, and Paul L. Hoffman, Harris & Hoffman, LLP, Venice, CA, for the defendants-appellants., William A. Crowfoot, Assistant United States Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for the plaintiff-appellee.