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. C R AIG M AR TIN SHULTS, JOSEPH HAYM O R E, PAUL LIC AUSI, SYLVIA M E LKONIAN, AKA Sy lvia Ibarra , De fe nda

n ts-Appe lla

nts. Nos. 14-50515, 14-50536,

14-50545 & 15-50540 D.C . No. 8:12-c r-00090-AG-1 8:12-c r-00090-AG-2 8:12-c r-00090-AG-3 8:12-c r-00090-AG-6 M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a ls from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia Andre w J. Guilford, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d an d Subm i tte d De c e m be r 4, 2017 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : TASHIM A a

n d B ER ZON, C irc u it Judge s, a

nd KENNELLY, ** Distric t Judge
. 

# FIL ED
APR 06 2018 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 Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The Honora

ble M a tthe w F. Ke nne lly , Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the N orthe rn Distric t of Illinois, sitting by de signa tion.C ra ig Shults, Jose p h Ha ym ore , Pa

u l Lic a u si, a nd Sy l via M e lkonia

n a ppe a l the i r c o nvic tions for wire fra u d unde r 18 U.S.C . § 1343. Shults a nd Ha ym ore a lso
a ppe a l the ir se nte nc e s. The c onvic tions involve d a sc h e m e to se ll inve stors distre s se d re side ntia l prope rtie s without disc losing known issue s with thetitle and phy sic a l qua lity

of the hom e s. The de fe nda

nts ra ise six issue s on a

ppe a l. First, a ll de fe nda

nts c la i m the tria l c ourt e rrone ously

de nie d the ir m otion to se ve r the ir joint trial. Se c o n d, Haym ore an d Lic a

usi a rgue the tria l c ourt wrongly a dm itte d two e xhibits. Third, Haym ore , Lic a

usi, a nd M e lkonia

n c onte nd the ir c onvic t ions we re supporte d by insuffic ie nt e vide nc e . Fourth, a ll de fe nda nts a rgue the prose c ution e nga ge d in
m isc o nduc t. Fifth, Shults c ha lle nge s the role e nha nc e m e nt the tria l c ourt a

pplie d to his se nte n c e . Sixth, Ha

ym ore argue s the distric t c ourt e rrone ously c a lc ulat e d the loss a m ount a nd re stitution orde

r whe n de te rm ining these nte nc e to im p ose . First, the de fe n da

n t s wa ive d re vie w of the distric t c ourt’ s de nia l of the ir
m otion to se v e r by

fa iling to re ne w the m otion a t the c lose of e vide n c e . A
se ve ranc e m otion m

ust be re ne we d at the c lose of e vide nc e or it is wa ive d, unle ss the m ova nt “ c an show e i the r that he dilige ntly pursue d se ve ran c e or tha t re ne wing the m otion would ha

ve be e n an unne c e ssa

ry form a lity .” Unite d State s v . De c oud , 2456 F.3d 996, 1008 (9th C ir. 2006) (c ita tion om i tte d). Ne ithe r e xc e ption a pplie s . W he n the tria l c ourt de nie d a pre tria l m otion to se ve r, it sta te d tha t its ruling wa s
a c c om pa nie d by “ a ve ry , ve ry , strong sta

te m e nt of tha

t be ing without pre

judic e to the p re se n tation of a dditiona l fa c ts a l ong the way .” The de fe nda nts a lle ge that, a s the t ria l progre sse d, a dditiona l fa c ts supporting se ve ranc e e m e rge d—

y e t the y did not re ne w the m otion whe n those fa c ts we re introduc e d. Thus there ne wa l of the
m otion a t the c lose of e vide nc e would not ha ve be e n a n unne c e ssa

ry form a l ity
. 1 Se c ond, we uphold thetria l c ourt’ s a dm ission of Exhibits 173 a n d 175-A.

“ W e re vie w a

distric t c ourt’ s finding tha

t e v ide nc e is supporte d by a prope r founda tion for a n a buse of disc re tion.” Unite d State s v . Tank , 200 F.3d 627, 630 (9th C ir. 2000). Fe d e ra l R ule of Evide nc e 901(a ) re quire s tha t the propone nt

“ m ake only

a prim a fa c ie showing of a

uthe ntic ity

so tha t a re a sona b le juror c ould find in fa vor of a uthe ntic ity .” Unite d State s v . C h u K ong Yin , 935 F.2d 990, 996 (9th C ir. 1991) (inte rna l quota tion m arks a

nd c i tation om itte d). At issueis the
a dm ission of Exhibit 173, a n e -m a il from

Ha ym ore to Shults with a

n atta c he d Powe rPoint, a

nd Exhibit 175-A, a

n e -m a il from

Lic a usi to Shults with a

n a tta c he d

1 To the e xte n t the de fe nda nts c h a l le nge the de n ia l of the tim e l y pre tria l m otion to se v e r, the distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion in re fusing se ve ranc e a t the tim e it wa s re que ste d without pre judic e to the issue be ing re ne we d at tria l. Se e Unite d State

s v . K aplan , 554 F.2d 958, 966 (9th C ir. 1977).

3re a l e sta

te a gre e m e nt. The founda tion for both e xhibits wa s provide d by Norm an Southe rby , to whom

Shults forwa

rde d both e -m a ils, who a

uthe ntic ate d e a c h e xhibit through the“ te stim ony

of a witne ss with knowle dge .” Fe d. R . Evid. 901(b)(1). The e xhibits we re a lso a de quate ly a uthe ntic a te d by

supporting c irc um sta

ntia l
e vide nc e . Se e Fe d . R . Evid. 901(b)(4). First, Justin Ha nna h te stifie d tha

t he introduc e d Shults a

n d Ha ym ore around the tim e the e -m a ils we re e xc h ange d
. Ne xt, M anue l R am i re z , a n a ssoc iate of Shults, te stifie d tha t Shults wa s e -m a ile d a Powe rPoint pre se ntation a nd tha t Shults discu sse d with Ha ym ore and Lic a

usi how the Powe rPoint pre s e ntat ion would be use d. Fina lly , C ory

C oope r, an e m

ploy e e a t Haym ore ’ s c om

p any , te stifie d tha

t the Powe rPoint a

tta c he d to Shults’ s e -m a il to Haym ore inc lude d c onte nts tha t we re a l so inc lude d in othe r Powe rPoints c om pile d by Ha ym ore ’ s c om

pa ny . M ore ove r, the e -m a ils bore the e -m a il a ddre sse s use d by Haym ore , Lic a

usi, a nd Shults. Se e Unite d

State s v . Fluk e r , 698 F.3d 988, 999 (7th C ir. 2012) (use of the de fe nda n t’ s e -m a il a d dre ss wa s c irc um sta ntia l e vide nc e tha

t the p roffe re d e -m a il from the de fe nda

nt wa s a uthe ntic ). Onc e a pa rty ha s introduc e d e nough e vide nc e to a llow a re a sona ble juror to find tha t a n e xhibit is wha

t it is c la im e d to be

— a s the re c ipie nt of a n e -m a il m ay do, ba se d upon knowle dge through re c e ipt of the ite m
— furthe r argum e nts a

bout the re lia bility of the e xhibit go to the

we ight thejury

should give

it, not its
4a dm issibility . Give n Southe rby ’ s te stim o ny an d the supporting c irc um sta n tia l
e vide nc e , the tria l c ourt did not a buse its disc re t ion by a dm itting the e xhibits. Fina lly , we have c onside re d the de fe nda nts’ C onfronta

tion C la u se and B e st Evide n c e R

ule argum e nts a

nd c onc lude the y

la c k m e rit. Third, we a ffirm

the c onvic tions of Ha

ym ore , Lic a

usi, a nd M e lkonia

n , e a c h of whom c onte sts the suffic ie nc y

of e vide nc e unde rly ing his or he r c onvic tion. W e re vie wthe e vide nc e in the light m ost fa vora ble to the prose c ution a

nd de te rm i ne whe t

h e r a ra tiona l trie r of fa c t

c o u ld ha ve found the e le m e nts of the offe nse be y ond a re a sona ble doubt. U

nite d State

s v . N e v i ls , 598 F.3d 1158, 1163- 64 (9th C ir. 2010) (e n b a

nc ). The e le m e nts of wire fra ud a re (1) the e xiste nc e of a
sc he m e to de fraud, (2) the use of wire , ra dio, or te le vision to further the sc he m e , and (3) a spe c ific inte nt to de fraud. 18 U.S.C . § 1343; Unite d State s v . Sullivan , 522 F.3d 967, 974 (9th C ir. 2008). The Gove rnm e nt introduc e d suffic i e nt e vide nc e to c onvinc e a ra tiona l trie r of fa c t tha t Ha ym ore an d Lic a

usi e n ga ge d in a

sc he m e of fra

udule nt c onduc t with spe c ific inte nt to de fra

ud. This inc lude d e vide nc e tha t Ha y m ore and Lic a

usi
c ontinue d to providere a l e s tate for Shults to se ll a fte r le arning of title issue s with the p rope rtie s. The Gove rnm e nt a lso offe re d e vide nc e showing tha t Ha ym ore and Lic a usi, a t the onse t of the sc he m e , sha re d with Shults a

Powe rPoint a

nd c ontra c t
5that

c onta ine d prom ise s, inc luding prom pt de live ry

of title , tha

t we re ne ve r fulfille d for m any

buy e rs. Like wise , the Gove rnm e nt pre se nte d suffic i e nt e vide nc e to c o nvinc e a

ra tiona l trie r of fa c t tha

t M e lkonia

n a lso ha d the re quisite inte nt. M e l konia n wa s a p prise d of the signific ant titleissue s with theprope rtie s be ing sold, but c ontinue d to a id Shults in the sa le s of the prope rty

long a fte r the se issue s
arose . Fina lly , the Gove rnm e nt a lso introduc e d suffic ie n t e vide nc e of the use of the w ire s for Ha

ym o re , Lic a

usi, a nd M e lkonia

n . Ea c h c onvic t ion wa s supporte d by suffic ie nt e vide nc e . Fourth, the prose c ution did not e nga g e in m isc o nduc t tha

t wa rra nts re ve rsa l
. W e re vie wthe re c ord de novo to de t e rm ine if prose c utoria l m isc onduc t oc c urre d,
and for pla i n e rror to de te rm i ne whe the r re ve rsa l is wa rra nte d whe re , a s he re , the de fe nda n ts did not obje c t c onte m pora ne ously to the m isc onduc t . Unite d State s v . Flore s , 802 F.3d 1028, 1034 (9th C ir. 2015). The de fe nda

nts c h a lle nge c e rta in sta

te m e n ts a s im

pe rm issible“ vouc hing,” whic h is m isc onduc t. Vouc hing oc c urs whe n a prose c utor’ s sta

te m e n t “ im

p rope rly introduc e [s] . . . the prose c utor’ s e xpe rie nc e with simi la r c a se s . . . a s a m e ans of
c om m e n ting on the

de fe n s e ’ s c a se .” Unite d State s v . W right , 625 F.3d 583, 611 (9th C ir. 2010). TheC ourt a gre e s tha t the prose c utor, whe n he twic e ana logiz e d the d e fe nda

nts’ c a s e s to c onduc t in “ e ve ry fra ud c a s e ” he ha d

worke d on, e n ga ge d
6in im

prope r vouc hing. B ut be c a use the sta

te m e nt wa s pa

rtia lly invite d by

the de fe nse ’ s a

rgum e nt, isola

t e d, a nd of lim ite d

se ve rity , the C ourt c onc lude s tha t the sta te m e nts do not wa

rra nt re ve rsa l. Unite d State s v . K oon , 34 F.3d 1416, 1445-46 (9th C ir. 1994), r e v ’d on othe r grounds , 518 U.S. 81 (1996). The prose c utor’ s othe r state m e nts c ha lle n ge d by the de fe nda

nts do not
c onstitute m isc onduc t . First, the prose c utor’ s m e n tion of his “ ne xt ga ng c a se ,”
m a de while de sc ribing thec onse que nc e s of the de fe nse ’ s line of re a soning in a hy pothe t ic a l future c a se , wa s not m isc onduc t, a s the prose c utor did not re fe re nc e ga ngs in a wa y that would e nc oura g e the jury to c onvic t

the de fe nda

nts for

“ re a sons wholly

irre le va nt to [the ir] own guilt or innoc e n c e .” Id. a t 1443 (inte rna l quota t ion m arks a

n d c ita tions omitte d). Se c ond, the prose c utor’ s c ha ra c te riz a tion of the re a sona

ble d o ubt sta

n da rd wa s not m isc onduc t, a s it fa irly c ha ra c te riz e d the burde n pla c e d upon thejury . Third, theprose c ution’ s obje c tion to the introduc tion of c e rta in e vide nc e a s he arsay wa s not m isc o nduc t. A prose c utor who obje c ts to the d e fe nse ’ s e xhibit a s he arsay , whose obje c tion is ultim a te ly de nie d , and a ga inst whom the e xhibit is use d in c losing ha s not c o m m itte d m isc onduc t. Fina lly , the
c um ulat ive e ffe c t of the prose c ution’ s c onduc t doe s not wa rrant re v e rsa l. Unlikein Unite d State s v . W allac e , 848 F.2d 1464, 1475-76 (9th C ir. 1988), in whic h the

7de fe nda

n t’ s c onvic tion re lie d

on lim ite d e v ide nc e , the de fe nda nts’ c onvic t ions in the p re se n t c a se we re pre m ise d on a m ple e vide nc e e sta

blishing the ir guilt. Fifth, we a ffirm

the distric t c ourt’ s a

pplic ation of a four-le ve l role
e nha nc e m e nt to Shults’ s se nte nc e . The C o urt re vie ws Shults’ s first a rgum e nt, tha

t the t ria l c ourt m isa

pplie d the Se nte nc ing Guide line s, for a buse of disc re tion. Unite d State s v . Rodrigue

z -C astro , 641 F.3d 1189, 1192 (9th C ir. 2011). Thetria l
c ourt did not a

buse its disc re t ion by

fa iling to make spe c i fic fa c tua l findings when de te rm i ning the prope r role e nha nc e m e n t. U

nite d State

s v . Ponc e , 51 F.3d 820, 826 (9th C i r. 1995) (“ The distric t c ourt ne e d not m ake spe c ific findings of fa c t in support of a

n upwa rd role a d justm e n t.” ) (c ita

tion om itte d ). W e re vie w Shults’ s se c ond a rgum e nt, tha

t the fa c ts do not support his

“ le a de r” e nha

nc e m e nt, for c le ar e rror. Rodrigue z-C astro , 641 F.3d a

t 1192. The tria l c ourt did not c le arly

e rr. Not only did Shults fa c ilita te and le a d the se m ina

rs
a t whic h the inve stors we re de c e ive d, he e x e rc ise d a uthority ove r M e lkonia

n during the fra

udule nt sc he m e , whic h is suffic i e nt to wa rra nt the e nha

nc e m e nt. Unite d State s v . Barne s , 993 F.2d 680, 685 (9th C ir. 1993) (a ffirm ing le a de rship
e nha nc e m e nt a

pplie d to de fe nda

nt who e xe rc ise d a

uthority ove r one othe r individua l).

8Fina lly , we a ffirm the distric t c ourt’ s c a l c ulation of $1.4 m illion a s the
am ount of loss a

ttributa ble to Ha ym ore . W e a

pply de novo re vie w to Ha

ym ore ’ s first a rgum e nt, tha

t the tria l c ourt wrongly

found the am o unt of loss by a pre p onde ranc e of e vide nc e , ra the r tha n c le ar and c o nvinc ing e vide nc e . Unite d State s v . Be rge r , 587 F.3d 1038, 1042 (9th C ir. 2009). Thetria l c ourt did not err by using the pre ponde ranc e sta nda rd to find theam ount of loss. The pre p onde ranc e sta

nda rd is a ppropria t e to find thefa c t s re lating to the e xte nt of a
c onspira c y

or a fra udule n t sc he m e , suc h a s wire fra ud. Id. a t 1048-49. W e re vie w Ha

ym o re ’ s se c ond a

rgum e nt, tha

t the tria l c o urt m isc a lc ulate d the a m ount of loss, for c le a

r e rror. Unite d State

s v . K imbre w , 406 F.3d 1149, 1151 (9th C ir. 2005). Thetria l c ourt “ ne e d only m ake a re a sona

ble e stim a te ,” whic h is

“ e n title d to a ppropria te de fe re nc e ,” a s “ [t] h e se nte n c ing judgeis in a unique position to a sse ss the e v ide n c e .” U.S.S.G. § 2B 1.1 c m t. 3(C ). The tota l losse s
a ssoc iate d with thesc he m e we re a pproxim at e ly

$6 m illion: $4 m

illion in 2009
and, a fte r Hay

m ore de pa

rte d the sc he m e , $2 m illion in 2010. Ha ym ore c onte nds that the tria l c ourt c le arly

e rre d by using losse s inc urre d in 2009 a nd 2010 to
c a lc ulat e his a

m ount of loss. W e disa gre e ; the tria l c ourt did not use losse s from 2010. The c ourt ba se d its e s tim a te of loss for Ha ym ore on its e stim a te for Shults. During Shults’ s se nte nc ing, the Gove rnm e nt re pe a te dly sta te d it wa s atte m

pting to
9prove that he wa s re sponsiblefor $4 m illion in losse s— the am ount of loss
a ttributa ble to the 2009 c onduc t. During Ha ym ore ’ s se nte nc ing, the tria l c ourt inte rrupte d his c ounse l twic e to sugge st it ha d ba s e d Shults’ s se nte n c e on $4
m illion of losse s (the 2009 losse s), not $6 million (the sum of 2009 a

nd 2010 losse s). The tria l c o urt ultim a te ly disc ounte d

Ha ym ore ’ s losse s by

$600,000 from its finding for Shults. Thus the loss a m ount a nd re stitution orde

r we re not c le arly
e rrone ous. AFFIRM E D.

10