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, Plaintiff - Appe lle e , v. HUGH LESLIE B A R

AS, De fe nda

nt - Appe lla

nt. No. 14-10396

D.C . No. 4:11-c r-00523-YGR -1
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Northe rn Distric t of C a lifornia Yvonne Gonz a le z R oge rs, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d an d Subm i tte d De c e m be r 8, 2015 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : PAEZ, C L IFTON, a nd OW ENS, C irc uit Judge s. Hugh B a ra s a ppe a ls his jury c onvic tion a nd se nte nc e for the ft of Gove rnm e nt prope rty , in viola t ion of 18 U.S.C . § 641, a nd five c ounts of ta

x e va sion, in viola

tion of 26 U.S.C . § 7201. W e a ffirm
. 

# FIL ED D EC 14 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S
. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t ion a

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

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3.The distric t c ourt did not viola te B ara s ’ s right to pre se nt a de fe nse and did not a buse its disc re tion by

e xc luding e vide nc e of B ara s ’ s be late d tax pa y m e nts. B ara s’ s de fe nse wa s only lim i te d in tha

t he c ould not a

tte m pt to provehis
m e dic a t ion-induc e d dim inishe d c a pa c ity de fe nse through e vide nc e of be late d pa ym e nt of ta

xe s. Evide nc e of la

t e tax pa ym e nts m a de while awa iting prose c ution is irre le va nt. Unite d State

s v . Pang , 362 F.3d 1187, 1194 (9th C ir. 2004). W e re the rule othe rwise , tax e va de rs c ould a tte m p t to “ avoid c rim ina l prose c ution sim ply by pa y ing up a fte r be ing c a

ught.” Id . Exc luding e vide nc e unde r Fe d . R . Evid. 403, in this insta

n c e e vide nc e re ga

rding be late d pa

ym e nt of ta

xe s, is pe rm itte d to
avoid a risk of c o nfusing theissue s a nd c onfusing thejury
. S

e e Holme s v . South C arolina , 547 U.S. 319, 326 (2006). Although the fa c ts in thec urre nt c a se are not ide ntic a l to the fa c ts in Pang or othe r c a se s re lie d upon by the distric t c ourt, B a

ra s ha s not e sta

blishe d tha

t the fa c t ua l diffe re n c e s justify

a c ontra ry re sult. Evidenc e of la

t e tax pa ym e nts is not pa rtic u la rly probative tha

t B ara s’ s prior fa ilure wa s the re sult of m e dic a tion. The Gove rnm e nt did not c om m it pre judic ia l m isc onduc t by

offe ring ne w argum e nts in re butta l. B y arguing tha t B ara s’ s hom e wa s still in disre pa ir, the Gove rnm e nt wa s re sponding to B ara s’ s de fe nse tha t his m e nta l c a

pa c ity ha d be e n te m pora rily a ffe c te d by

m e d ic a tions. Theargum e nt re ga rding B ara s’ s opportunity 2to a

v oid ta xe s wa s inc lude d in ope ning sta t e m e nts whe n the Gove rnm e nt disc usse d B ara s’ s re c e ipt of W -2 form s by his e m ploy e rs. The jury instruc t ions e n c om

pa sse d B ara s’ s m e nta l disorde r de fe nse . “ [I] t is not re ve rsible e rror to re

j e c t a de fe nda nt’ s propose d instruc tion . . . if othe r instruc tions, in the ir e ntire ty , a d e quate ly c ove r that de fe nse the ory .” Unite d State s v . Mason , 902 F.2d 1434, 1438 (9th C ir. 1990), ov e rrule d on othe r grounds by Dix on v . Unite d

State s , 548 U.S. 1 (2006). The instruc tions sta

te d tha t the jury
c ould a c quit if it found tha t B ara s suffe re d from dim inishe d c a pa c ity a s a re sult of pre s c ription drugs. An a

dde d re fe re nc e to B ara s’ s a lle ge d m e nta l disorde r would not ha ve m e an ingfully furthe re d this de fe nse be c a use the m e n ta l disorde r de fe nse wa s ba se d

on B ara s’ s use of m e dic a tions. W e find highly

troubling the

tre a tm e nt by

the U.S. Attorne y ’ s Offic e of the
c onta c ts a nd atte m pte d c onta c ts by

a juror with a

n a ssista nt U.S. Attorne y . W e are surprise d both tha t the a ssista

nt U.S. a ttorne y who wa s the ta

rge t of the c onta c ts did not prom

ptly notify his supe riors or thosein the offic e re sponsiblefor the prose c ution of this c a se , a nd tha t those re sponsibledid not prom ptly notify the distric t c o urt a

nd de fe nse c ounse l. A de la y of six we e ks is e s pe c ia lly ha rd to unde rsta nd, a nd we a dvise the offic e tha t it would be

prude nt to tre a t a

ny suc h
e pisode in the future diffe re ntly . None the le s s, we a gre e with the a sse ssm e nt of the 3distric t c o urt tha t B a ra s wa s not pre

judic e d a nd tha t a ne w tria l wa s not re q

uire d. Juror m isc onduc t ha s be e n he ld to wa rra nt re ve rsa l in c a se s involving “ e x te nde d
e xte rna l influe n c e s on jurors or c onfirm e d juror bias ,” ne ithe r of whic h is pre se nt he re . He nry

v . Ry an , 720 F.3d 1073, 1086 (9th C ir. 2013) (e m p ha sis in origina

l). W hile the juror did disobey the c ourt’ s instruc tion to re fra in from c om m unic a ting with a ny o ne , the juror’ s c om

m unic a tions we re fa irly found to ha ve be e n innoc uous and unre late d to the m e rits of the c a se . The e vide nc e a t tria l did not c onstruc tive ly am e nd the indic tm e nt, nor did it im prope rly va ry from the a lle gations in the indic tm e nt. The indic tm e nt did not spe c ify a pa rtic ula r the ory of tax e va sion. In a

ny e ve nt, the e vide nc e of B ara s’ s fa ilure to re port the c oin sa le s wa s prope rly introduc e d a s proba

tive of his inte nt, not a s a n inde pe nde n t ba sis for his c onvic tion. The distric t c ourt c o rre c tly de c line d to group the

two se ts of offe n se s a ga inst the IR S and the Soc ia l Se c urity Adm inistra

tion, unde r U.S.S.G. § 3D1.2, be c a use the o ffe nse s re pre se nte d two se pa ra te and distinc t ha

rm s. The y

a lso involve d distinc tly diffe re nt c onduc t. Although both the IR S a nd the SSA are pa

rt of the fe de ra l gove rnm e nt, the y

are se pa ra te a ge nc ie s and we re vic t im iz e d in diffe re nt way s.

4The distric t c ourt did not err in holding tha t B ara s’ s pa

ym e nts did not
re quire an a c c e pta

n c e of re sponsibility

re duc tion. W

he t he r B ara s a c c e pte d
re sponsibility

for his c rim e wa s a

fa c tua l finding tha

t this c ourt re v ie ws for c le ar e rror. Unite d State

s v . Garrido , 596 F.3d 613, 617 (9th C ir. 2010). The re wa s no c le ar e rror he re . B ara s dispute d his guilt a nd did not de m onstra

te c ontrition. The distric t c ourt did not err in orde ring forfe i ture of funds. C rim ina l forfe iture is se p a

ra te from re stitution, whic

h se rve s an e n tire ly

diffe re nt purpose . Ac c ordingly , this c ourt ha s he ld tha t “ de fe nda

nts m ay be re quire d to pa

y re stitution
and forfe it the sa

m e am o unts.” Unite d State s v . N e w man , 659 F.3d 1235, 1241 (9th C ir. 2011) (quota

tion om itte d). This is e spe c ia lly true in c a se s in whic h

“ a de fe nda n t is c onvic te d of a

c rim e tha t provide s for forfe iture a s pa rt of the pe na lty
. ” Unite d

State s v . C arte r , 742 F.3d 440, 446 (9th C ir. 2014). AFFIRM E D.

5