2009 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 6-18-2009 

# U SA v . Andrew Y a o P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t N o . 08-1977

F o l low thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit or y

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2009 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit or y

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C a rl s on@l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " U SA v . Andr ew Y

a o " (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1174. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/1174NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

__________ N o. 08- 1977

__________ UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. ANDR E W N. YAO, A ppel l ant O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt

fo r th e D istri ct of

D elaw are ( D . C . N o. 01- 06- cr - 00027- 001) D i s t r i ctJ udge: H on. G r egoryM . Sl eet A r gued on M ay12, 2009 B efor e: A M B R O , R O T H and A L A R C Ó N *, C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed: J une 18, 2009) M ark E . C ed ron e, E sq u ir e ( A r gue d) C edr one & J anove Publ i c LedgerB ui l di ng, Sui t e 940 15 0 S ou t h Indep end ence M al l W est Phi l adel phi a, PA 19106

C ouns el forA ppel l ant

* H o n o ra b le A rth u r L . A lar c ó n , S e n io r U n ited S tate s C irc u it Ju d g e f o r th e N in th C i r cui tC our tof A ppeal s , s i t t i ng bydes i gnat i on.2

C o lm F . C o n n o ll y , E sq u ir e U n i t e d S t a t e s A t t o r n e y Shannon T . H ans on, E s qui r e ( A r gue d) A s s i s t antU ni t ed St at es A t t or ney 1007 N . O r ange Str eet , Sui t e 700 P. O . B ox 2046 W i l m i ngt on, D E 19899- 2046

C ouns el forA ppel l ee

O P I N I O N RO TH , C i r cui tJ udge: A ndr ew Y ao appe al s fr om a j udgm entof convi ct i on form aki ng a fa l s e oath i n a bankrupt cypr ocee di ng, i n vi ol at i on of 18 U . S. C . § 152( 2) . T he D i s t r i ctC our thad j ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 18 U . S. C . § 3231. T hi s C our thas j ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 1291. W e as s um e the part i es ’ fami l i ar i t yw i t h t he fa ct s and the r ecor d of pr i or p ro c e e d in g s, w h ich w e d e sc rib e o n lya s n e c e ss a ryto e x p lain o u r d e c isio n . W e w ill a f f i r m. Y ao’ s s ol e compl ai nti s di r ect ed att he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s i ns t ruct i on on t he fra u d u lent inten t r eq u ir ed to p rov e a v iolati o n o f 1 8 U . S . C . § 1 5 2 (2). T h e D istri ct C o u rt defi ned “f

r audul ent l y ” t o r equi r e an “ i nt entt o dece i ve the trus t ee, t he cr edi t or s , t he b an k rup tcyco u rt , o r an yo ther p erso n o r en ti ty . ” Y ao arg u es th at t h e D istri ct C o u rt s houl d have l i m i t ed the pot ent i al obj ectof the “i nt entt o dece i ve” t o “the trus t ee, t he c re d ito rs , o r t h e b a n k ru p tc yc o u rt .”3

D u rin g trial, Y a o d id n o t o b jec t to th e lan g u a g e “ o r a n yo th e r p e rso n o r e n tity ” in t he “f r audul ent ” j ur yi ns t ruct i on. I ndeed, t he w or ds w er e adde d t o t he i ns t ruct i on att he D istric t C o u rt’s s u g g e stio n a s a c o m p ro m ise b e tw e e n Y a o ’s s u g g e ste d len g th y“ in ten t to defr aud” i ns t ruct i on and the governm ent ’ s open- ended “ i nt entt o dece i ve” l anguage , and bot h par t i es appr oved the l anguage befor e i tw as us ed i n t he pr el i m i naryi ns t ruct i ons . T he “oranyot herper s on orent i t y ” l anguage w as us ed aga i n fol l ow i ng t he pr ay erconfe r ence and a fi nal t i m e aft er the jur yasked a qu est i on du ri ng deli berat i on s, and nev er di d d efen se c o u n s e l p u t a “ c le a r, s p e c if ic o b je c tio n ” to th a t la n g u a g e o n th e re c o rd . See U ni t ed Stat es v. Zehr bach , 47 F. 3d 1252, 1260 n. 6 ( 3d C i r . 1995) . A ccor di ngl y , w e r evi ew t he i ns t ruct i on onl yfor“pl ai n err or . ” I d. Pl ai n err ori s “found ‘ s par i ngl yand onl yw her e the err orw as s ur e t o have ha d unfai rpr ej udi ci al i m pacton t he j ur y ’ s del i ber at i ons . ’ ” U ni t ed Stat es v. Thayer , 201 F. 3d 214, 221–22 ( 3d C i r . 1999) ( quot i ng Zehr bach , 4 7 F . 3 d a t1 2 6 3 n . 9 ) . M o r e o v e r , “ we sh o u ld e x e rc ise o u r d isc re tio n to c o rre c t th e e rro r [ o n ly ] w h e re th e d e f e n d a n t is a c tu a lly in n o c e n t, or w h e re , reg a rd les s o f th e d e f e n d a n t’s in n o c e n c e o r g u ilt , the e rro r se rio u sly aff ect s t he fa i r nes s , i nt egr i t yorpubl i c r eput at i on of j udi ci al pr ocee di ngs . ” U ni t ed Stat es v. G or don , 2 9 0 F .3 d 5 3 9 , 5 4 3 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 2 ). W e f in d n o su c h p ro b lem h e re . Y a o lied to c r e d i t o r s ’ c o u n s e l a b o u tt r a n s f e r s o f f u n d s h e ma d e f

r o m c o rp o r a t e d e b t o r ’ s a c c o u n t s . He t old these l i es w hil e un der oat h d uri ng his dep osi t i on as partof b ank rupt cyproceed i ng s, and theyconce r n a fa ctm at er i al t o t he debt or ’ s bankrupt cy— w hatY ao di d w i t h overW e thus do notdeci de w hetherconvi ct i on under18 U . S. C . § 152( 2) t ypi cal l yr equi r es 1 an “i nt entt o dece i ve” a nyper s on oran “i nt entt o dece i ve the cr edi t or s , t he trus t ee, ort he b a n k ru p tc yc o u rt .” 4 $800, 000 of the debt or ’ s as s et s . W e have r evi ew ed the r ecor d and ar e s at i s fi ed thatt he evi dence w oul d overw hel m i ngl ys uppor tt he ver di cteven i f the j ur yi ns t ruct i ons had not i ncl uded the di s put ed l anguage . 1 A ccor di ngl y , w e w i l l aff i r m t he j udgm entof convi ct i on.