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. KIRKLAND C HARLES, De fe nda

nt - Appe lla

nt. No. 13-50233

D.C . No. 2:11-c r-00405-TJH-2
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia Te rry J. Ha

tte r, Se nior Distric t

Judge , Pre siding Argue d and Subm itte d August 5, 2015 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : O’ SC A

NNLAIN, SILVER

M AN, a nd WARD L AW , C i rc uit Judge s . Kirkla nd C ha rle s a ppe a ls his c onvic tions a

nd se nte nc e for thirte e n

c ounts of ba nk fra ud, 18 U.S.C . §§ 2(a ), 1344(2), a nd one c o unt of m a

k ing a fa lse sta te m e nt to a fe de ra lly

insure d ba

nk, 18 U.S.C . §§ 2(a ), 1014. W e have jurisdic tion pursua nt to 28 U.S.C
. § 1291. W e a ffirm in pa rt, re ve rse in pa

rt, a nd re m and. 

# FIL ED SEP 23 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S

. CO URT O F APPEALS

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

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

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3.1. C ha rle s c orre c tly

argue s tha

t the Am e nde d Tria l Indic tm e nt wa s
m ultiplic itous be c a

use it c h arge d four e xe c utions of ba nk fra ud in thirte e n c ounts. To de te rm ine whe the r c ounts of ba nk fra ud a re m ultiplic itous, we look to how the indic tm e nt de fine s the sc he m e and e xam ine how m any e xe c utions of the sc he m e
are a lle ge d, a

fa c tua lly inte nsive inquiry
. Unite d State s v . Molinaro , 11 F.3d 853, 859–60 (9th C ir. 1993). He re , the indic tm e n t c ha rge d C ha rle s a s a knowing a

nd willful pa rtic i pa nt in a sc he m e to fra

udule ntly obta in a nd de ple te busine ss line s of
c re d it from

B ank of Am e ric a

and W e lls Fa

rgo B a nk. The a lle gations a

nd proof support four e xe c utions of the s c he m e , one for e a c h of the four line s of c re d it tha t
wa s fra u dule ntly obta ine d a

nd de ple te d by

C ha rle s a nd va rious of his c o-sc he m e rs. The a dditiona l nine c ounts of ba nk fra u d, whic h c ha rge d individual withdra

wa ls from the four line s of c re dit, do not a m ount to se

pa ra te e xe c utions of the

sc h e m e , but a re “ a c t[s] in furthe ranc e of [the ] sc he m e to de fraud.” Id. at 860. Ea c h withdra wa l “ de pe nde d on the [fraudule ntly obta ine d line s of c re dit] for its
e xiste nc e ” ; did not involve “ a ne w a nd inde pe nde nt obliga

t ion to betruthful” ; a

nd did not c re a te a

ne w a nd inde pe nde nt risk for theba nks. Id. at 860 & n.16. B e c a use a c ts in furthe ran c e of a sc he m e to de fraud do not c onstitute se pa ra te ba nk fraud offe nse s , the se nine c ounts we re m ultiplic itous. Id. ; Unite d State s v . Ste w art , 420 F.3d 1007, 1012 (9th C ir. 2005). Although we va c ate C h arle s’ s c onvic tions
2for the m

ultiplic i tous c ounts, we do not va c ate the first c ount of c onvic tion for e a c h of the four line s of c re dit— c ounts 1, 3, 5, a nd 10— a n d we re m a

n d for
re se nte nc ing. S

e e Ste w art , 420 F.3d a

t 1021–22; Unite d State

s v . N ash , 115 F.3d 1431, 1438 (9th C ir. 1997). 2. The distric t c ourt c orre c tly c onc l ude d tha t suffic ie n t e vide nc e supporte d C ha rle s’ s c onvic tions for ba

nk fra ud in viola

tion of 18 U.S.C . §§ 2(a ), 1344(2).

“ [T] he re le v ant que stion is whe the r, a fte r vie wing the e vide nc e in the light m ost favora ble to the prose c ution, a ny ra tiona l trie r of fa c t c ould ha ve found the
e sse ntia l e le m e nts of thec rim e be y ond a re a s ona ble doubt.” J

ac k son v . Virginia , 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979). He re , the e vide nc e de m onstra te d tha t c h e c k s we re m a de out to C h arle s a

nd B are ka Holdings, a

c om pa ny c ontrolle d

by C ha rle s, from the fraudule ntly ope ne d line s of c re dit for A& A De ve lopm e nt C orporat ion, C a lifornia Podiat ry of Dia be te s Foot, a

nd Howling M oon, Inc . A c o-sc he m e r a lso te stifie d that he ove rhe ard C ha

rle s and Andre a

Ave ry , the undispute d le a d e r of the sc he m e , arguing a bout wha t pe rc e nta ge of e a c h line of c re dit Ave ry would re c e ive . And a form e r B ank of Am e ric a e m ploy e e , Quin W e stbrook, te stifie d tha t C ha rle s he lpe d
sc he dule a site visit to a

fic titious offic e of C a lifornia Podiatry of Dia be te s Foot in
c onne c tion with his a

pplic a tion for a c re d it linefor tha t c om p any . Drawing a ll infe re n c e s from

the e vide nc e in the light m ost fa vora ble to the gove rnm e n t, a
3ra tiona l jury c ould ha ve c onc lude d tha

t C ha rle s wa s a knowing m e m

be r of the
sc he m e , ha d the inte nt to de fraud, a n d a c te d in furthe ranc e of the sc he m e . Se e Rose mond v . Unite d State s , 134 S. C t. 1240, 1245, 1247–48 (2014); Unite d State s
v . Mc N e il , 320 F.3d 1034, 1037, 1039 (9th Cir. 2003). A rat iona l jury

a lso c o u ld ha

ve c onc lude d tha

t C ha rle s wa s vic ariously

lia ble for Ave ry ’ s e sta

blishm e nt of the Lithium

M ic rosy ste m s line of c re dit, a n d subse q ue nt withdra

wa l of funds from

tha t line , be c a

use Ave ry ’ s a c tions would have be e n re a sona bly fore se e a ble to C ha

rle s a s a “ knowing pa

rtic ipa nt in [the ]
sc he m e to de fraud.” Unite d State s v . Staple ton , 293 F.3d 1111, 1117 (9th C ir. 2002); s e e also United State s v . Gre e n , 592 F.3d 1057, 1071 (9th C ir. 2010). 3. Suffic ie nt e vide nc e a l so supporte d C ha rle s’ s c onvic tion for m aking a fa lse sta te m e nt to a

fe de ra lly insure d ba

nk, in viola

tion of 18 U.S.C . §§ 2(a ), 1014. Se e J ac k son , 443 U.S. a

t 319. C ha

rle s c onc e de s tha

t he fa lse ly

re pre s e nte d to B ank of Am e ric a

tha t Kat hryn Ne m itzwa s the owne r an d gua rantor of De La

Sty le , Inc
. on a n a pplic ation for a

line of c re dit. A ra

tiona l jury a lso c ould ha

ve c onc lude d that C ha rle s m a de this fa lse re pre s e ntation “ for the purpose of influe n c ing” B ank of Am e ric a . 18 U.S.C
. § 1014. Thea pplic ation itse lf, a

nd B ank of Am e ric a ’ s loa n
re vie w proc e s s, would ha v e m a de it c le ar to C ha

rle s tha t the ide ntity

of the gua ran tor wa s re le va

n t to theba

nk’ s de c ision-m aking proc e ss.

44. The distric t c ourt did not pla inly e rr in a dm itting c opie s of two C a lifornia drive r’ s lic e nse s issue d to C ha rle s (Exhibits 200 a

nd 201) without a

uthe n tic ation, be c a use the drive r’ s lic e n s e s we re “ c um ulative of othe r e vide nc e a dm itte d at tria l without obje c tion.” Unite d State s v . Musac c hio , 968 F.2d 782, 791 (9th C ir. 1991). C ha

rle s c onc e de s tha

t the a pplic ations for his drive

r’ s lic e nse s (Exhibits 245 a nd 248) we re prope rly

a dm itte d a s c e rtifie d public re c ords. The s e
a pplic a tions c onta ine d

C ha rle s’ s ha ndwriting a

nd signa ture s , a n d the jury

c ould have use d the a pplic ations, like

the drive r’ s lic e nse s , a s e xe m pla rs whe n ide n tify ing C ha

rle s’ s ha ndwriting on c onte ste d doc um e nts. 5. The distric t c ourt did not pla inly e rr whe n it de c line d

to sua sponte instruc t the jury that it wa s re quire d to c om pa re a lle ge d insta

n c e s of C ha

rle s’ s ha ndwriting to a

n a uthe ntic ate d e xe m

pla r to ide ntify

his ha ndwriting. “ [A] jury
m ay m ak e ha ndwriting c om

pa risons e xc e pt unde r e xtre m e or unusua l
c irc um s ta nc e s .” Unite d State

s v . J e nk ins , 785 F.2d 1387, 1395 (9th C ir. 1986). C ha rle s doe s not c ite to a

ny pre c e de nt re q

uiring thejudge to spe c ific a lly instruc t the j ury a bout how to make ha

ndwriting c om

pa risons whe n

it is c a l le d upon to do so. The jury

wa s a de q uate ly m a de aware of its duty

to m ake an

a ffirm ative ide n tific a tion of C ha

rle s’ s ha ndwriting a

nd did not re quire a dditiona l instruc tion.

56. The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re t ion in a

pply ing se nte n c i ng
e nha nc e m e nts for use of sophistic at e d m e a n s, unla wful use of m e a

n s of ide n tific a tion, a

nd a loss in e xc e ss of one -m illion dolla rs. Se e Unite d State

s v . Tre adw e ll , 593 F.3d 990, 999 (9th C ir. 2010). The e vide nc e a dduc e d at tria l supporte d the distric t c ourt’ s findings tha t C ha rle s unla wfully use d m e ans of ide n tific a tion, inc luding soc ia l se c urity and ba nk a c c ount num

be rs, on the
a pplic a tion for theDe La

Sty l e , Inc . line of c re dit, U.S. Se nte nc ing Guide l ine s M an ua l § 2B 1.1 c m

t. n.7 (U.S. Se nte nc ing C om m ’ n 2002); e m

ploy e d sophistic ate d
m e ans suc h a s e sta

blishing she ll c o rporations, id. n.6; a nd wa s re sponsiblefor losse s tota ling m ore tha

n one m illion dolla

rs, id. n.2. Fina lly , a s the gove rnm e nt
c orre c tly note s, the distric t c ourt did not a pply an e nha nc e m e nt for a

n a ggravate d or le a de rship role in the fra u d ule nt sc he m e . 7. The distric t c ourt e rre d by a pply i ng the 2004 se nte nc ing guide line s. C ha rle s wa s c ha

rge d with a

nd c onvic te d of fra

udule nt c onduc t tha

t oc c urre d be twe e n June 27, 2001 a

nd Ja nua ry 16, 2003. B e c a

use the “ Ex Post Fa c to C la use ba rs the re troa c tive a

pplic a tion of ‘ e na c tm e nts whic h . . . inc re a se the punishm e nt for a c rim e a fte r its c om

m ission,’ ” Unite d State

s v . Forre ste r , 616 F.3d 929, 946 (9th C ir. 2010) (om i s sion in origina l) (quoting Garne r v . J

o ne s , 529 U.S. 244, 249 (2000)), the distric t c o urt should ha ve a p plie d the se nte n c i ng guide line s tha t we re
6“ in e ffe c t on the date tha t the offe nse of c onvic tion wa s c om m itte d,” id. (quoting U.S.S.G. § 1B 1.11); se e also Pe ugh v

. Unite d State s , 133 S. C t. 2072, 2081–84 (2013). W e le a

ve to the distric t c ourt the de te rm ination whe the r the 2001 or 2002
se nte nc ing guide line s a

pply
. B e c a

use we re m an d for re -se nte nc ing ba se d on the
m ultiplic itous c ounts, we n e e d not re solve whe the r this e rror wa s ha rm le s s. Like wise , we de c line to a ddre ss whe the r C ha rle s’ s se nte nc e wa s substa ntive ly
unre a s ona

ble
. AFFIRM E D in par t; RE V E RSE D in par t; RE M ANDE D.

7