N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C U IT

UNITED STATES OF AM ER IC A, Appe lle e ,
v. ER IK HOLM AN, De fe nda

nt-Appe lla

nt. No. 14–10494

D.C . No. 2:11–c r–00457–JC M –C W H –1

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 Ne v a da Ja m e s C . M a ha

n, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d Nove m

be r 19, 2015 * * Sa n Fra n c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : M c KEOW

N, R AW L INSON, a nd PAR

KER , † C irc uit Judge s . De fe nda nt-Appe lla

nt Erik Holm a n a

ppe a ls from a judgm e nt of c onvic tion for

one c ount of c o nspira c y t o c om m it wire fra ud a n d fourte e n c ounts of wire fra ud. Se e 18 U .S.C

. §§ 1343, 1349. The prose c ution a rose f rom a sc he m e to e m

be z z le funds 

# F IL ED

JAN 29 2016
M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a

ppropria te for public a tion a

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

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3.

** T he pa ne l una nim ously finds this c a se suita

ble for de c ision without ora l a rgum e nt. Se e Fe d . R . App. P. 34(a )(2); 9th C ir. R . 34-4.

† The Honora

ble B a rrington D. Pa

rke r, Jr., Se nior C i rc uit Judge for the U.S. C ourt of Appe a ls for the Se c ond C irc uit, sitting by de signa tion.from Am e ric a n Fa m ily Insura n c e (“ AFI” ), the e m

ploy e r o f his form e r life pa rtne r a n d busine ss a ssoc i a te , John Provost. On a ppe a l , Holm a n c onte nds tha t the tria l e v ide nc e wa s insuffic ie nt to e sta blish his guilt o n al l c ounts. He a lso c la i m s tha t the d istric t c o u rt e rre d in de c lining to dism iss the indic t

m e nt for fa ilure to c olle c t a nd pre ser v e p o t e ntia lly e xc ulpa tory

e vide nc e , in a dm it t i n g p re judic ia l, irre le va

nt te s tim ony a t tria l, a nd by im posing a substa ntive ly a nd proc e dura lly

unre a sona

ble se nte nc e . W e a ffirm

. To e sta blish a v iola

tion of due proc e ss ba se d upon t he Gove rnm e nt’ s fa ilure to

c olle c t or pre se rve pote ntia lly e xc ulpa tory e vid enc e , Holm a n m ust show tha t the Gove rnm e nt a c te d in ba d fa ith a nd tha t he wa s una ble to obta in c om

pa ra ble e vide nc e by othe r re a sona

bly a va ila b l e m e a ns. Arizona v . Youngblood , 488 U.S. 51, 58 (1988); Unite d State

s v . Siv illa , 7 1 4 F.3d 1168, 1172 (9th C ir. 201 3 )

. T h e m ag i stra te judge
to whom the m otion w a s re fe rre d found tha t the Gove rnm e nt did not i n ba d fa ith fa i l
to c olle c t a nd p re s e rve pote n t i al ly e xc ulpa t ory e m a ils a nd doc um e nts on Provost’ s work la ptop because the y ha d a lre a dy be e n de stroy e d pursua n t to AFI’ s doc um e nt de struc tion p olic y be fore the G ove rnm e nt c om m e nc e d it s inve stiga

t ion. B e c a

use Holm a n did not obje c t t o the m a gistra te ’ s re port a nd re c om

m e nda t ion, he c a nnot now

c ha lle nge the m a gistra

te judge ’ s fa c tua l finding tha t t he Gove rnm e nt did not a c t in b a d fa ith. Miranda v . Anc hondo , 684 F.3d 844, 848 (9th C ir. 2011) (“ Fa ilure to obje c t to

a m a g istra

te ’ s fa c t ua l findings wa ive s the right to c ha lle nge those findings.” ). In a ny

2e ve nt, the m a gistra te judge c orre c tly c onc lude d tha t the Gove rnm e nt did not a c t in b a d fa ith. Se e Unite d State

s v . Fly e r , 633 F.3d 911, 9 16 (9th C ir. 2011) (“ B ad f ai th

re quire s m ore tha

n m e re ne g lige nc e or re c kle s sne ss.” ). Holm a n’ s c ha lle nge t o his c onspira c y c onvic tion a lso fa i ls. T h e G ove rnm e nt introduc e d e vide nc e suffic ie nt for the jury t o c o nc lude be y ond a re a sona b le doubt tha t Holm a n knowingly pa

rtic ipa t e d in the c onspira c y . A m o ng othe r things, the Gove rnm e nt prove d t

ha t Holm a n pa

rtic ipa te d in the sc he m e to de fra ud by se tting up

a sha m priva t e inve stiga

tive firm , Holm a n Inform a t i on Se rvic e s (“ HIS” ), t o whic h Provost issue d c he c ks from AFI for se rvic e s HIS ne ve r provide d, a nd tha t Provost a n d Holm a n m a de pe rsona l use of the funds. The e vide nc e wa s a lso suffic ie nt t o suppor t Holm a n’ s wire fra ud c onvic tions. To susta in a c onvic tion for w i r e f r a ud, the Gove rnm e nt h a d to prove (i) a sc he m e to de fra ud, (ii) use of the wire s in further an ce o f the sc he m e , a nd (iii) a spe c ific inte nt to de c e ive or de f

r au d

. Unite d S

tate s v . Shipse

y , 363 F.3d 962, 971 (9th C ir. 2004). The Gove rnm e nt introduc e d e vide nc e suffic i en t t o prove t ha t Holm a n e sta

blishe d a sha m busine ss tha t w a s use d by Provost t o fa c ilita te a sc he m e to de fra ud AFI through the use of the wire s, pursua nt to whic h a se rie s of de p o sits c h a rge d in the s ubsta ntive wire fra ud c ounts we re de posite d into a n a c c ount whic h H o l m a n use d for pe rsona l purpose s . 3Holm a n a dditiona lly c o nte nds tha t the distric t c ourt i m prope rl y a llowe d
te stim ony tha t he s howe d a la c k of c om pa ssion a nd c o nc e rn while in the hospita l a fte r Provost a tte m

pte d suic ide

. W hile we ha ve s ignific a n t d oubts as t o the re l e va nc e of this te stim ony , we do not b el i ev e tha t t he distric t c ourt a

buse d its disc re tion in

a dm itting the e vide nc e a s som e proof of the cl o s e n e ss of Holm a n a nd Provost’ s

re la tionship. Eve n a ssum ing the te stim ony should not h a ve be e n a dm itte d, a ny e rror

wa s ha rm le ss in light of the substa ntia l e vide nc e o f Holm a n’ s guilt. Se e Unite d State s

v . Me r ino-Balde rrama , 146 F.3 758, 761 (9th C ir. 1998). Fina lly , the distric t c ourt did not c o m m i t proc e dura l or su bs t an t ive e rror in

se nte nc ing Holm a n to thirty -se ve n m onths inc a rc e ra tion followe d by three y e a rs of supe rvise d re le a se , a se nte nc e a t the bottom of the Se nte nc ing Guide li ne s ra nge . H olm a n’ s a rgum e nts for a se nte nc e of thre e y e a rs o f supe rvise d re le a s e e sse ntial l y

c onsiste d of re a rguing his de fe nse s a t tria l. Our re v ie w o f the re c ord indic a te s tha t the distric t c ourt prope rly c a lc u l at e d Holm a n’ s Guide line s ra nge a nd did n ot im pose a substa ntive ly unre a sona

ble se n t e n c e . M ore ove r, the d istric t c ourt a de qua t e ly indic a te d tha t i t ha d c onside re d the 18 U.S.C

. § 3553(a ) fa c tors a n d the s ta te m e nts a nd m a te ria ls subm itte d by

c ounse l a nd sa tisfa c torily e xpla ine d the se nte n c e it im pose d. AFFIRM E D.

4