T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on a nd i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by 9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l y c onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t a bl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l a r g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2).

T he H on orabl e L ee H . R osenthal , D i stri ctJudg e f or the U . S . D i stri ct ** * C our tf orS outhe rn T e xa s , s i tt i ng by de s i gna t i on.

NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T UN I T E D S T AT E S OF AME R I C A, P l ai nt i ff

- A pp el l ee , v. MAT T HE W C AR L B E R R Y, D e f

e n d a n t - A p p e lla n t. N o. 09- 50331 D. C . No . 5 : 0 6 - c r - 0 0 0 7 5 - S GL ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e C e n tr a l D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia S t e phe n G . L a r s on, D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d N ove m be r10, 2011 ** P a s a d e n a , C a lif

o rn ia B ef ore: T A L L M A N and M U R G U IA , C i rc ui tJudg es , and R O S E N T H A L , D i stri ct Judg e. *** 

# FI LED DE C 05 2011 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS2

M a tthe w C a r l B e rry appe a l s hi s j ury c onvi c t i ons f orc ons pi r a c y t o de f

r a ud the U ni t ed S t at es i n v i ol at i on of 18 U . S . C . § 3 71 , and w i l l ful l y f i l i ng fa l se t ax re turns i n v i ol at i on of 26 U . S . C . § 7 20 6(1). B erry ar gu es thatfi ve procedural e rr or s a ttr i a l w a rr a ntr e ve r s a l . B e c a us e B e rry f a i l e d t o obj e c ta ttr i a l t o e a c h of the a s s e r te d d e f

ic ie n c ie s , w e r e v ie w f

o rp la in e rr o r . See U

ni t ed Stat es v. G re er , 640 F . 3d 10 11 , 10 17 -18 (9t h C i r. 20 11 ); U ni t e d Stat e s v . W

r i ght , 625 F . 3d 583, 610 (9th C i r. 20 10 ); U

ni t ed Stat es v. B an ks , 51 4 F . 3d 95 9, 97 5-76 (9th C i r. 20 08 ); U ni t ed Stat es v. Sh w ayder , 312 F . 3d 1109, 1120 ( 9th C i r . 2002) . W e ha ve j u r i s d i c t i o n p u r s u a n tt o 2 8 U . S. C. § 1 2 9 1 , a n d w e a f f i r m.

I T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t d id n o t p la in ly e rrin p e r m ittin g th e g o v e rn m e n t to i m peac h B erry w i th “ extri nsi c e vi dence” s ug gest i ng thatB erry re m ai ned i nv ol ved i n the t a x f

r a ud s c he m e e ve n a f

t e rhi s i ndi c tm e nt . F e de r a l R ul e of E vi de nc e 404( b) st at es thatthe go vernm entm ay i ntrodu ce “ other a ct s” evi dence “ prov i ded t hat u p o n r e q u e s t b y th e a c c u s e d , [ th e g o v e rn m e n t] s h a ll p r o v id e r e a s o n a b le n o tic e in ad v an ce o f tri al , o r d u ri n g tri al i f th e co u rtex cu ses p retri al n o t i ce o n g o o d cau se show n, of the general nature of a ny such evi dence i ti nt ends t o i ntrodu ce attri al . ”3

W e assu m e w i th o u td eci d i n g th atth e ev i d en ce i n q u est i o n w as “ o th er act s” ev i d en ce su b

j ectt o R u l e 4 0 4 (b ). B ecau se th e ev i d en ce cam e fro m a d efen se w i tness , the go vernm entw as un aw ar e of i tun t i l af t ertri al had com m ence d and at m os ta f e w da y s be f

or e the w i tne s s t e s t i f

i e d. B e f or e the w i tne s s t ook the s t a nd, the pr os e c ut ora nnounc e d tha the i nt e nde d t o c r os s - e xa m i ne a boutw he the rthe w itn e s s ’s ta x r e tu rn s w e r e p r e p a r e d b y B e rry a n d w h e th e rth e y w e r e f r a u d u le n t. T h is n o tic e , g iv e n s ix d a y s b e f o r e B e rry ’s c r o s s - e x a m in a tio n , w a s s u f f ic ie n t to de s c r i be the “ ge ne r a l na tur e of the e vi de nc e of

e xtr i ns i c a c t s . ” F e d. R . E vi d. 40 4(b), advi sory com m i tt ee no t e ( 19 91 ). In thi s c on t ext , w e c anno tsa y the di stri ct c o u r t p la in ly e rr e d in a d m ittin g th e e v id e n c e . II T he di stri ctcourtdi d n otpl ai nl y e rri n al l ow i ng the go vernm entt o ask B erry if o th e rw itn e s s e s w e r e m is ta k e n in th e irte s tim o n y . W e r e c e n tly o b s e r v e d th a t th is c our tha s “ noty e ta ddr e s s e d w he the ri ti s i m pr ope rf orthe pr os e c ut ort o a s k the defe nd ant. . . i f aw i tness t es t i fi ed i nacc urat el y. ” G re er , 6 4 0 F .3 d a t 1 0 2 3 . B e c a us e ne i the rthe S upr e m e C our tnorthi s c our tha s y e trul e d on thi s que s t i on,

“ even as sum i ng the di stri ctcourterre d b y a l l ow i ng thi s quest i on i ng , the error w as n o t s o c le a r - c u t, s o o b v io u s , a c o m p e te n t d is tr ic t ju d g e s h o u ld [ h a v e ] b e [ e n ] a b le to4

avoi d i tw i tho utbenefi tof obj ec t i on . ” I d. ( quot a t i on m a r ks om i tt e d a nd a l t e r a t i ons i n o ri g i n al ). T h erefo re, th e d i stri ctco u rtd i d n o tp l ai n l y err i n p erm i tt i n g th ese i n q u i ri es.

II I A ny vo uchi ng thatt oo k p l ac e does notconst i tut e pl ai n err or. “ Im prop er vouc hi ng oc c ur s w he n the pr os e c ut orpl a c e s the pr e s t i ge of the gove rnm e ntbe hi nd the w i tness by prov i di ng pers on al as sura nces of the w i tness ’ s ver ac i ty. ” W r i ght , 6 2 5 F .3 d a t 6 1 0 ( q u o ta tio n m a r k s o m itte d ) . B e rry c l a i m s the pr os e c ut orvouc he d f orthe t e s t i m ony of

a gove rnm e nt w itn e s s b y a s k in g B e rry , “I f I to ld y o u th a t’s w h a t M r . L e w is te s tif ie d a t tr ia l, w ou l d you sa y he i s m i st aken? ” T he prosec ut or ar gu abl y pl ac ed som e per sonal w e ig h t b e h in d th e w itn e s s ’s te s tim o n y , b u t its e f f e c t, if a n y , w a s n e g lig ib le . W e d o u b t th is r is e s to th e le v e l o f im p r o p e rv o u c h in g . R e g a r d l e s s , a n y v o u c h i n g wa s h a r m l e s s . Wh e n r e v i e wi n g f o rp l a i n e rr o r , we

“ ba l a nc e the s e r i ous ne s s of the vouc hi ng a ga i ns tthe s tr e ngth of the c ur a t i ve i nstruct i on and cl osenes s of the ca se . ” U ni t e d Stat e s v . C om bs , 379 F . 3d 564, 575 ( 9th C i r . 2004) ( quot a t i on m a r ks om i tt e d) . F i r s t , the di s tr i c tc our tga ve a c ur a t i ve i nstruct i on before j ury del i bera t i on that“ ar gu m ent s a nd st at em ent s by l aw ye rs ar e5

no tevi dence. ” S ec on d, thi s w as no ta c l ose c as e. T he go vernm entpres ent ed s u b s ta n tia l in d e p e n d e n t e v id e n c e th a t B e rry k n o w in g ly a s s is te d th e ta x b u s in e s s in fi l i ng fa l se t ax re turns. A ny vo uchi ng there fore w as no tre vers i bl e e rr or.

IV T he di s tr i c tc our te rr e d i n pe r m i tt i ng the gove rnm e ntt o a s k gui l t - a s s um i ng hy pothe t i c a l s dur i ng c r os s - e xa m i na t i on of B e rry ’ s c ha r a c t e rw i tne s s e s . W e ha ve r e c ogni z e d tha t“ i ti s e rr orf orthe pr os e c ut i on t o a s k que s t i ons on cr oss- exam i nat i on thatas sum e the defendant ’ s gui l tof the preci se ac t s f or w hi ch he i s on tri al . ” Sh w ayder , 3 1 2 F .3 d a t 1 1 2 0 . T h e p ro secu t o r’ s q u est i o n s t o W al k er an d th e S h aw s w ere i m p ro p er b ecau se the y a s ke d the w i tne s s e s t o a s s um e B e rry w a s gui l ty of one of the m e a ns of

the c ons pi r a c y c ha r ge d i n the i ndi c tm e nt . A l though the hy pothe t i c a l s pos e d t o the S ha w s a s s um e d m e r e l y e vi de nc e of gui l t , a s oppos e d t o a c tua l gui l t , the que s t i ons n o n e th e le s s p r e d ic tab ly in d u c e d th e m to a s s u m e a s f a c t th a t B e rry h a d h e lp e d h is d a u g h te r , K a r e n B e rry , c o m m it w e lf a r e f r a u d . B e c a u s e th e s e h y p o th e tic a ls w e r e in e f f e c t g u ilt- a s s u m in g , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t e rr e d in p e r m ittin g th e m . N o tw i th s t a n d i n g th i s e rr o r , Be rry h a s n o ts h o w n th a ti ta f f e c t e d th e o u t c o me of the pr oc e e di ngs . W ha t e ve rha r m the s e hy pothe t i c a l s m i ghtha ve i nf l i c t e d on6

B e rry ’ s c r e d i b i l i ty wa s l i k e l y e c l i p s e d b y th e h a r m wr o u g h tb y B e rry ’ s o wn te s tim o n y . F o re x a m p le , e v e n th o u g h th r e e w itn e s s e s te s tif ie d th a t th e y m e t w ith B e rry f o rth e i rt a x e s a n d i d e n t i f i e d h i m i n c o u r t , B e rry d e n i e d m e e t i n g th e m . He al so ad m i tt ed th ath e fal sel y cert i fi ed fo rm s i n su p p o rto f h i s d au g h t ers’ appl i ca t i on s f

or pu bl i c benefi t s. F urther, t o repeat , the go vernm entadvanced consi derabl e i nd ependentevi dence of B erry ’ s gui l t . W e there fore concl ud e that a lth o u g h th e g u ilt- a s s u m in g q u e s tio n s w e r e im p r o p e r , th e y d o n o t w a rr a n t r e v e r s a l.

V T h e d i stri ctco u rtd i d n o terr b y ad m i tt i n g ev i d en ce co n cern i n g B erry’ s p ast ga m bl i ng a c t i vi t i e s , hi s r e put a t i on a s be i ng de t a i l - or i e nt e d, a nd hi s ge ne r a l l e ve l of m ent al t ou gh ness and abi l i ty t o st and u p t o h i s w i fe . W here the go vernm entoffe rs e vi de nc e nott o pr ove “ a c t i on i n c onf or m i ty the r e w i th, ” F e d. R . E vi d. 404( a ) , but a s d ir e c t e v id e n c e o f

th e c h a r g e d o f

f e n s e , th e e v id e n c e is n o t in a d m is s ib le c h a r a c te re v id e n c e . E . g. , U ni t e d Stat e s v . Moor e he ad , 57 F . 3d 87 5, 87 8 (9t h C i r. 19 95 ) ( t es t i m on y thatdefe nd antow ned a gu n w as no tchar ac t erevi dence butdi re ct e v id e n c e o f

p o s s e s s io n o f

f ir e a r m b y a f

e lo n ) . F urtherm ore, F eder al R ul e of E vi dence 404 (a )( 1) prov i des that“ char ac t er evi dence i s a dm i ss i bl e w hen o ff er ed by the prosecut i on t o rebut[e ] vi dence of a7

pert i nenttra i tof char ac t eroffe re d b y a n acc used. ” U ni t e d Stat e s v . Me ndoz aP r ado , 314 F . 3d 1099, 1105 ( 9th C i r . 2002) ( quot a t i on m a r ks om i tt e d a nd a l t e r a t i on i n or i gi na l ) . “ [ W ] he n the de f e nda nt‘ ope ns the door ’ t o t e s t i m ony a bout a n i s s ue by r a i s i ng i tf

orthe f i r s tt i m e hi m s e l f

, he c a nnotc om pl a i n a bout subsequentgo vernm enti nq ui ry i nt o thati ss ue. ” I d. ( quot i ng U

ni t ed Stat es v. H egw ood , 9 7 7 F .2 d 4 9 2 , 4 9 6 ( 9 th C ir . 1 9 9 2 ) ) ( a lte r a tio n in o r ig in a l) . E vi dence of B erry ’ s pas tgam bl i ng w as prop er l y a dm i tt ed because i tw as o f f e r e d n o t to p r o v e th a t h e a c te d in c o n f o r m ity th e r e w ith w h e n h e e n g a g e d in fr aud, bu tas foun dat i on al evi dence s up po rt i ng the charge thathe fi l ed fa l se t ax r e tu rn s b y , in te ra lia , m i srep o rt i n g g am b l i n g w i n n i n g s. E vi dence of B erry ’ s a tt ent i on t o d et ai l and ass ert i ve pers on al i ty w as ad m i ssi b l e as reb u tt al ch aract er ev i d en ce. A ttri al , B erry p o rtrayed h i m sel f as a hard-w orki ng and al oo f m an w ho defe rr ed t o h i s w i fe t o h andl e the fa m i l y’ s t ax bus i ne s s a nd f

i na nc e s . C ons e que nt l y , the di s tr i c tc our tdi d note rri n a dm i tt i ng the r e b u tta l e v id e n c e . VI N o rd id th e c u m u la tiv e e f f e c t o f th e a s s e r te d e rr o r s a b o v e p r e ju d ic e B e rry . See U ni t ed Stat es v. Fre deri ck , 78 F . 3d 13 70 , 13 81 (9th C i r. 19 96 ). E ven8

c u m u la tiv e ly w e ig h e d , th e p o s s ib le v o u c h in g a n d g u ilt- a s s u m in g h y p o th e tic a ls w er e harm l es s i n l i gh tof the i nd ependentstre ng th o f the go vernm ent ’ s c as e. In part i cul ar , the cum ul at i ve error does notun derm i ne the key t es t i m on y of s ever al w i tne s s e s w ho di r e c t l y obs e r ve d B e rry s upe r vi s e a nd c a rry outthe pr e pa r a t i on of f a l s e a udi tdoc um e nt s , orthe doc um e nt a ry e vi de nc e of B e rry ’ s i nc ul pa t ory ba nk w ith d r a w a ls a n d f

a ls e ta x r e tu rn s . B ecau se rev ersal i s n o tw arran t ed b y an y o f th e fo reg o i n g assert ed erro rs, w e i ghe d i ndi vi dua l l y orc um ul a t i ve l y , B e rry ’ s c onvi c t i ons s t a nd. A F F I R M E D .