N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT UNITED STATES OF AM ER IC A, Plaintiff - Appe lle e , v. PETER W ONG, De fe nda

nt - Appe lla

nt. No. 14-10184

D.C . No. 3:12-c r-00483-EM C -2 M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Northe rn Distric t of C a lifornia Edwa rd M . C he n, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d

M ay 14, 2015 ** San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : THOM AS, C hie f Judge , OW ENS, C irc uit Judge and C OLLINS, *** C hie f Distric t Judge . 

# FIL E D MAY18 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).

* ** The Honora

ble R ane r C . C ollins, C hie f Distric t Judge for the U.S. Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ariz ona , sitting by de signa tion.Pe te r W o n g a ppe a ls his c onvic tion of thre e c ounts of the ft c onc e rning a fe de ra lly funde d progra

m in viola

tion of 18 U.S.C . § 666(a )(1)(A). Having jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291, were je c t his a rgum e nts a

nd a ffirm . First, the wa

rrant a lle g e d suffic ie nt fa c ts e sta b lishing proba

ble c a u se to se arc h W ong’ s hom e . Se e Unite d State s v . Angulo-Lope

z , 791 F.2d 1394, 1399 (9th C ir. 1986) (judge s a

re “ e ntitle d to dra

w re a sona ble infe re nc e s a

bout whe re e vide nc e is like ly to be ke pt, ba se d on the nature of the e vide nc e and the ty pe of offe nse ” ); Unite d State

s v . C h av e z-Miranda , 306 F.3d 973, 978 (9th C ir. 2002) (issuing judge s m ay

re ly on a n offic e r’ s tra ining a

nd e xpe rie nc e ). M o re ove r, unde r Unite d State s v . Le on , this wa s not a warrant “ s o la c king in indic ia of proba ble c a use ” tha t it wa s unre a sona

ble for offic e rs to re ly

on the judge ’ s proba

b le c a use de te rm i nation. 468 U.S. 897, 923 (1984) (inte rna l quota tion m a rks om itte d); Unite d State s v . Luong , 470 F.3d 898, 903 (9th C ir. 2006) (holding no suppre ssion be c a use the a ffida

vit e sta blishe d “ at le a st a c olora

ble argum e n t for proba

ble c a use ” ). Se c ond, the distric t c ourt did not err in re fusing to give a m ista ke -of-fa c t jury instruc tion; theinstruc tions a s a whole a p prise d the jury of the spe c ific inte nt re quire d a nd a de quate ly

e m bodie d the de fe nse ’ s the ory . Se e Unite d State s v . Anguiano-Morfin , 713 F.3d 1208, 1210 (9th C ir. 2013) (the instruc tions given
1 4 - 1 0 1 8 4 2a de quate ly

c onve y e d the offe nse ’ s e le m e nts, inform e d the jury of the dispositive issue , a nd pre se nte d the de fe nse ’ s the ory ); Unite d State s v . Sarno , 73 F.3d 1470, 1485 (9th C ir. 1995). Fina lly , the juror did not introduc e e xtra ne ous pre judic ia l inform ation to the jury during de libe ra tions; hem e re ly re lie d on his pe rsona l e xpe rie n c e in the ba nking industry

to inte rpre t the e vide nc e introduc e d at tria l. Se e Unite d State s v . N av arro-Garc i a , 926 F.2d 818, 821-22 (9th C ir. 1991). Likea doc tor-juror who

“ will doubtle ss ha

ve knowle dge and e xpe rie nc e be aring on a ny m e dic a l que stions that m a y arise ” during tria l, Grote me y e r v . Hic k

man , 393 F.3d 871, 879 (9th C ir. 2004), a juror with ba

nking e xpe rie nc e will bring his knowle d ge to be ar on ba nking issue s. “ Eva luation of c re dibility ne c e ssa rily re lie s on e xpe rie nc e ,” id. , and the juror’ s re lia

nc e he re wa s ne ithe r une xpe c te d nor im prope r. AFFIRM E D .

1 4 - 1 0 1 8 4 3