[DO N OT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 1- 15 73 7 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 0 :1 1- cr-6 01 63 -WJZ-1

UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us MATTHEW

HYLTON , ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e So ut he rnDis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Jul y 17 , 20 12 ) Befo re CARNES, WILSON andANDERSON, Circu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM: Mat th ew Hy lt on ap pe al s h is co nv ic ti on on on e co un t o f ob ta in in g Case: 11-15737 Date Filed: 07/17/2012 Page: 1 of 4ci ti zen sh ip by fraud , invi ol at io n o f 18 U.S.C. § 1 42 5( a). On app eal , Hy lt on

arg ue s t ha t the go ve rn m en t’s the ory at t ria l an d t he di st ric t co urt’s jury in st ru ct io ns co ns tru ct iv el y

am en de d h is in di ctm en t. Sp eci fic al ly, he arg ue s t ha t the go ve rn m en t at te m

pt edto bro ad enth e b as is of c on vi ct io n b y in di cat in g t ha t h is frau d c on vi ct io n c ou ldbe ba se d upo n acri m e o th er tha n t he sp eci fic pri oroff en se ci te d i n h is in di ctm en t (arm edbankrob be ry ) an d t ha t the co urt’s jury in stru ct io ns bo ls te redth e g ov ern m en t’s ac ti on s. Whe n ra is edfor

th e fi rs t t im e o n app eal , we rev ie w a cla im of c on st ru ct iv e am en dm en t u nd er p la in erro r. Uni te d S ta te s v . Rut he rfo rd , 17 5 F .3d89 9, 9 06 (1 1t h C ir. 1 99 9)
. A “ fu nd am en ta l p rin ci pl e” d eri ve d fr om th e Fi fth Am en dm en t i s t ha t “ a de fen da ntcanon ly be co nv ic te d fo r a cri m e ch arg edin th e in di ctm en t” be cau se

“ [i]t wo ul d b e fu nd am en ta ll y un fai r to co nv ic t a d efen da nton ch arg es of wh ic h h e ha d n o n ot ic e.” Uni te d S ta te s v . Kell er, 9 16 F.2d62 8, 6 33 (11 th Cir . 19 90 ). Hy lt on co nt en ds th athi s i nd ic tm en t was “ co ns tru ct iv el y am en de d” by the pr os ecu to r’s act io ns an d t he jury in st ru ct io ns . See i d. A con st ru ct iv e am en dm en t o ccu rs “ whe n t he ess en ti al ele m en ts of t he of fen se co nt ai ne d i n t he in di ctm en t ar e al te redto bro ad enth e p os si bl e b as es for
co nv ic ti on be y on d wh atis co nt ai ne d i n t he in di ctm en t.” Id
. at63 4. 2 Case: 11-15737 Date Filed: 07/17/2012 Page: 2 of 4Inde te rm in in g wh ethe r anin di ctm en t was co ns tru ct iv el y am en de d, we l oo k atwhet he r th e p ro se cu to r’s act io ns or t he co urt’s i ns tru ct io ns , “ vi ewedin co nt ex t,” li te ral ly or effe ct iv el y

ex pa nd edth e in di ctm en t. Un it edSta te s v . Beh ety , 32 F.3d 50 3, 5 08 -0 9 (1 1t h C ir. 1 99 4) . Sim il arl y , we “ m us t an al y ze jury

in st ru ct io ns in th e co nt ex t o f th e ev id en ce p res en te d a ndth e g ov ern m en t’s the ory at t ria l” in de te rm in in g wh ethe r a co ns tru ct iv e am en dm en t o ccu rred . Uni te d S ta te s v . W il li am s, 5 27 F.3d12 35 , 12 47 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ). Hy lt on ha s n otsh own th ateit he r th e g ov ern m en t’s the ory at t ria l o r th e co urt’s jury

in st ru ct io ns co ns ti tu te d aco ns tru ct iv e am en dm en t o f hi s i nd ic tm en t. Inco nt ex t, n ei th er o f th em in di cat edth atHy lt on ’s frau d c ha rg e co ul d b e b as ed up on an y pri orcri m e o th er tha n t he arm edba nkrob be ry th atwas re fere nc edin th e in di ctm en t. Dur in g t he tri al , th ere wer e p as si ng refe ren ces to Hy lt on ’s un la wfu l tran sf er of a fi rearm , bu t the se were m ad e m erel y in th e co nt ex t o f sh owi ng Hy lt on ’s in vo lv em en t i n t he arm edrob be ry . By co ntras t, the go ve rn m en t re ferr edto th e arm edbankrob be ry

do zen s o f ti m es du rin g t he tri al , in cl ud in g i n o pe ni ng st at em en ts , inth e que st io ni ng of s ev eral witne ss es (in cl ud in g Hylto n h im se lf, wh o adm it te d t o t he rob be ry ), an d i n c lo si ng st at em en ts . The refe ren ces to Hy lt on kn owi ng ly comm it ti ng “ a cri m e” were m ad e in th e 3 Case: 11-15737 Date Filed: 07/17/2012 Page: 3 of 4co nt ex t o f refe rri ng to th e que st io n t ha t Hy lt on ha d fr au du le nt ly ans wered :

whe th er h e h ad“ kn owi ng ly com m it te d a ny crim e o r of

fen se ” fo r whi ch he ha d n ot be enarre st ed . The ref

eren ces to “ a cri m e” were als o re le va ntto reb utHy lt on ’s de fen se th eo ry , whi ch was tha t h e co ul d n otbe co nv ic te d b ecau se he di d n otkn ow th ataid in g a n a rm edrob be ry was a ctua ll y

a cri m in al off

en se . The jury in stru ct io ns si m il arl y pro vi de no supp ort fo r Hy lt on ’s arg um en t. The di st ric t co urt re adth e in di ctm en t t o t he jury an d s pe ci fic al ly caut io ne d tha t Hy lt on was o n t ria l “ on ly for the sp eci fic off en se all eg edin th e in di ctm en t.” The in di ctm en t was no t am en de d b y th e act io ns of t he go ve rn m en t o r th e di st ric t co urt. Up on rev ie w of t he reco rdan d c on si de rat io n o f th e p art ie s’ bri efs , we affi rm . AFFIRMED. 1

Hylton’s reque st for ora l argument is DENI ED. 1 4 Case: 11-15737 Date Filed: 07/17/2012 Page: 4 of 4