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,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lle e ,

v. JOHN GR IM SON LYON,

De fe nda n t-Appe l la

nt. No. 15-30204

D.C . No. 4:14-c r-00057-B M M -2

M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Sta t e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of M o nta

na B ria n M

. M orris, Distric t

Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d August 29, 2016 ** Se a ttle , W a s hington
B e fore : HAW KINS, a n d M c KEOW N , C irc uit Judge s , a

nd EZR A, *** Distric t Judge

. 

# FIL ED

SEP 02 2016
M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U

. S

. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not ap p r op r i at e f o r p ub l i cat i o n an d i s not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

** T h e p a n e l u n a n i m o u s l y c o n c l u d e s t h i s c a s e i s s u i t a b l e f o r d e c i s i o n without ora l a

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

*** The Honora

ble Da vid A. Ez ra , Unite d Sta te s Se nior Distric t Judge for the W e ste rn Distric t of Te xa s, sitting by de signa tion.De fe nda nt-Appe lla

nt John Grim son L y on a

ppe a l s his jury tria l c onvic tions for wire fra ud, in v i ola tion of 18 U.S.C

. § 1 343; f a l se c l a im s, in viola

tion of 1 8 U.S.C

. § 287; a n d the ft of gove rnm e nt prope rty , in v i o l at i o n of 18 U.S.C

. § 641. W e ha ve jurisdic tion unde r 28 U

. S .C. § 1291. W e re vie w de novo a distric t c o urt’ s de nia l of

a m otion to dism iss the indic tm e nt for fa il u r e to sta t e a n o ffe nse , Unite d State s v
. Blix t , 5 48 F.3d 882, 886 (9th C ir. 2008), for m u ltiplic ity , Unite d State

s v
. Brook s , 610 F.3d 1186, 1194 (9th C ir. 2010), a nd f o r im prope r v e nue , Unite d State s v
. Sulliv an , 797 F.3d 623, 631 (9th C ir. 2 0 15). W e a lso re v ie w de novo the distric t c ourt’ s de nia l of a m otion for a c quitta l whe re , a s he re , t he d e fe nda

n t p r o p er l y pre se rve d his

c ha lle nge to the suffic ien cy of the e vide nc e
. Unite d S tate s v
. Pe lisame n , 6 41 F.3d 399, 409 n.6 (9th C ir. 2 0 11). W e re vi ew f o r abuse of disc re t ion the distric t c ourt’ s de c ision to give a J

e w e l l instruc tion, Unite d State s v
. He re dia , 483 F.3d 913, 922 (9th
C ir. 2007) (e n ba

nc ), a nd its de c ision to de ny a m otion for a

ne w tria l, Unite d State

s

v . Bhagat , 436 F.3d 1140, 1145 (9th C ir. 2006). W e a ffirm

. 1. The distric t c o u r t d i d no t e rr in de ny ing Ly on’ s m otion to dism iss the indic tm e nt for fa ilure to s ta te a n offe nse
. T h e indic tm e nt a de qua te ly a lle ge s tha t Ly o n kne w his subordina

te De n ny wa s subm itting fa lse tim e she e t s. The i ndic tm e n t did not

ne e d to a lle ge tha t Ly o n obta ine d a fina nc ia l b e ne fit in orde r to a lle ge wire fra ud, fa lse cl ai m s , or the ft of gove rnm e nt prope rty

. Se e Unite d State s v
. J inian , 725 F.3d 954,

2960 (9th C ir. 2013) (“ The e le m e nts o f wire f r au d ar e: (1) the e xiste nc e of a sc he m e
to de fra ud; (2) the use of w i r e, r ad i o, or t e le vision to furthe r the sc he m e ; a nd (3) a
spe c ific inte n t to de fra ud.” ); 18 U.S.C

. § 287 (fa lse c la i m s stat ut e p e na liz e s a ny o ne who “ m a k e s or pre se nts ” a f al s e c la im , no re q

uire m e nt of re c e iving a ny be ne fit); id

. § 641 (pe na liz ing a ny one w ho “ e m b e z z le s, ste a l s, p urloins, or knowingly c onve rts to his use or the use of anothe r . . . a ny
. . . m o ne y , or t hing of va lue of the Unite d Sta te s or of a ny de pa rtm e nt or a ge nc y

the re of . . . .” ) (e m

pha sis a dde d).
2. T he d istric t c ourt did not e rr in de ny ing Ly on’ s m otion to dism i s s t h e indic tm e nt for m

ultiplic ity

. The gove rnm e nt m a y , c o nsiste nt with t h e D o u ble
Je opa rdy C la use , c ha rge viola tions of m ultiple sta t ute s ba se d on a

single a c t, so long

as each co unt re quire s the gove rnm e nt to p rove a n a d ditiona l fa c t t ha t the othe rs d o
not. B rook

s , 6 10 F.3d a t 1194. “ The e le m e nts of t he offe nse s a re de t e rm ina t ive , e v e n if the re is a substa

ntia l ove rla

p in the ir proof.” Id. (inte rna l quota tion m a rks o m itte d).
He re , wire fra ud, fa lse c la im s, a nd t he ft of gove rnm e nt prope rty e a c h h a v e a t le a st o ne

e le m e nt the o the rs do not. W ire fra ud re quire s the use of a wire , whic h the othe r two

c rim e s do not. Se e J

inian , 725 F.3d a t 960. Fa lse c la i m s re quire s subm itting a de m a nd for gove rnm e nt m one y or prope rty , s e e Unite d State s v
. Ja ckson , 845 F.2d 880, 883 (9th C ir. 1 988), whic h t h e o th er t wo c rim e s do not. The ft o f gove rnm e nt

3prope rty unde r 18 U.S.C. § 6 4 1 re q uire s ta king g ove rnm e nt prope rty for o ne ’ s own

use or the use of a

nothe r, whic h the othe r two c rim e s do not.
3. Nor did the distric t c our t er r i n d e ny ing Ly on’ s m otion to dism i ss the fa lse

c la im s c ount for im

prope r ve nue
. The indic t m e nt a de qua te ly a l le ge s tha t t h e f al s e

c la im wa s m a de a nd pre se nte d in M onta na
. 4

. The r e w as no a

b use of disc re tion in giving a J e w e l l instruc tion or de ny ing Ly on’ s m otion for a ne w t ria l, whic h w a s b a se d sole ly on the a lle ge d e rror in giving the J e w e ll instruc tion. Evide n c e supporte d a finding t ha t L yo n was a wa re of a high proba b ility tha t D e nny wa s not a c tua lly wor ki n g al l o f t he hours he c la im e d he wa s working, a n d tha t L y on de libe ra te ly fa ile d to inve stiga te de spite signs t

ha t De nny wa s working so little tha t no one e l s e in the offic e c ould ge t in c onta c t with him

. A J e w e l l instru ct i o n n eed not inc lude a n instruc tion tha t the de fe nda nt’ s m otive for fa iling to inve stiga te wa s to give him se lf a de fe nse s ho u ld h e b e a ppre he nde d. He re dia , 483 F.3d a t 9 1 9

- 2 0. Ly on’ s s ta tutory inte rpre ta tion a rgum e nt is u npe rsua sive in light of this c ourt’ s prior a

pplic a tions of J

e w e ll ’ s de libe ra te ignora

nc e sta nda rd to the c rim e s of whic h Ly on wa s c onvic te d

. Se e Unite d State s v
. Eric k son , 75 F.3d 4 70 , 481 (9th
C ir. 1996) (fa lse c l a im s); Unite d State s v
. He nde rson , 721 F.2d 276, 2 7 7-79 (9th C ir. 1983) (the ft of gove rnm e nt prope rty ); se e also Unite d State s v . Mc D onald , 576 F.2d 1350, 1358 (9th C ir. 1978) (m a il fra ud); J inian , 725 F.3d a t 960 n.2 (“ [T] he w ire fra u d

4sta

tute i s re a d in light of t

he c a se l a w on m a il fra ud.” ) ( i n t er na l quota tion m a rks

om i tte d).
5. Nor wa s the re e rror in the distric t c ourt's de nia l of Ly on’ s m otion for a c quitta l.
R e a ding the e vid e nc e in the light m o st fa vora ble to t he prose c u tion, the re wa s suffic i e nt e vide nc e for a ra tiona l jury to find be y ond a re a sona b le d ou b t tha t Ly o n

e ithe r kne w or wa s de libe ra te ly ignora nt of the fa lsity

of De nny ’ s c l a im e d hours.
AFFIRM E D.

5