Case ID: f-appx_668/html/0799-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Arianna ROSALES, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 15-30228
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Argued and Submitted August 30, 2016 Seattle, Washington
    Filed September 12, 2016
    Alison L. Gregoire, Assistant U.S. Attorney, DOJ-United States Attorney’s Office, Eastern District of Washington, Spokane, WA, Thomas John Hanlon, Assistant U.S. Attorney, DOJ-USAO, Yakima, WA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Bevan Jerome Maxey, Esquire, Attorney, Maxey Law Offices, PLLC, Spokane, WA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: GOODWIN, SCHROEDER, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
   MEMORANDUM

Arianna Rosales appeals her jury conviction for conspiracy to steal casino funds in excess of $1000, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 371 and 1167(b); theft from a gaming establishment in excess of $1000, in violation of § 1167(b); and theft from a gaming establishment in an amount less than $1000, in violation of § 1167(a). The convictions arose out of a fraudulent scheme in which Rosales kicked back winning proceeds of casino drawings in which she never participated. The scheme was orchestrated by two casino employees.

Rosales contends that the district court should have granted her motion for acquittal or new trial because the evidence was insufficient to establish a single conspiracy. She contends there were multiple conspiracies. Her theory is flawed. Multiple conspiracies require multiple agreements and purposes. United States v. Taren-Palma, 997 F.2d 525, 530 (9th Cir. 1993) (per curiam). Here, the same co-conspirators were involved in the entire scheme and there was one overall agreement. See United States v. Patterson, 819 F.2d 1495, 1502 (9th Cir. 1987).

The evidence of the prior “Hot Seats” promotion was admissible under Fed. R. Evid. 404(b).

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