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 HR ISTOPHER

JAM ES B L AUVELT, AKA C hristophe r B l a

uve lt, De fe nda nt-Appe l la

nt. Nos. 15-50059

15-50206 D.C . No. 2:14-c r-00282-R -2
M EM O R ANDUM *

UNITED STATES OF AM ER IC A,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lle e , v. DAVID PR ITC HARD,

De fe nda nt-Appe l la

nt. No. 15-50066

D.C . No. 2:14-c r-00282-R -1

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 M anue l L. R e a l , Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d Fe brua

ry 14, 2017 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia 

# FIL ED FEB 28 2017 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S
. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a

ppropria te for public ation 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.B e fore : D.W . NELSON, TALLM AN, a nd N.R
. SM ITH, C irc uit Judge s. Following a

jury tria l, Da vid Pritc ha

rd and C hristophe r B la

uve lt a ppe a l the ir
c onvic tions a

nd se nte nc e s for m a il fra

u d, wire fra

ud, a nd the sa l e of unre giste re d
se c uritie s. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291. W e a ffirm in pa rt, a nd
va c ate and re m and in pa

rt. 1. The e vide nc e supporting Pritcha rd’ s c onvic tions fa

r e x c e e d s the qua ntum tha t a rationa l trie r of fa c t would find suffic ie nt to c o nvic t. Se eUnite d State s v . Pe lisame n , 641 F.3d 399, 409 n.6 (9th C ir. 2011). W ith re spe c t to Pritc ha rd’ s fra ud c onvic t ions, the gove rnm e nt pre se nte d suffic i e nt e v ide nc e tha

t he inte nde d to de fraud a

nd knowingly

pa rtic ipate d in a

sc h e m e to de fraud. Se eUnite d State s v . Sullivan , 522 F.3d 967, 974 (9th C ir. 2008) (pe r c uriam ). The e v ide nc e showe d Pritc ha

rd kne w of, a

nd a llowe d te le m arke t e rs to m ake , m ate ria l
m isre pre se ntations. Thee v ide nc e a lso showe d Pritc ha rd m a de m isre pre s e ntations to, a nd om itte d m at e ria l fa c ts from , pote ntia l a nd e x isting inve stors through phone
c onve rsations, in-person m e e tings, a nd inve s tor ne wsle tte rs. C onc e rning these c uritie s viola tions, thegove rnm e nt pre s e nte d suffic ie nt
e vide nc e to show Pritc h a

rd kne w the se c uritie s we re unre giste re d a nd willfully sold the m . Pritc ha

rd kne w of the c e a s e and de sist orde rs, de d uc e d tha t the c om pa ny wa s se lling unre giste re d se c uritie s, a gre e d to hidethe re gula

tory proble m s from inve stors, a

nd a llowe d the c om

pa ny to c ontinue se l ling unre g iste re d se c uritie s. 22. The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion in ruling on De fe nda nts’
re que s ts for c ontinua

n c e s. Se eUnite d State

s v . Fly nt , 756 F.2d 1352, 1358–59 (9th C ir.), ame nde d by

764 F.2d 675 (9th C ir. 1985). First, the distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion whe n it gra nte d Pritc ha rd’ s re que ste d c ontinua

n c e only in pa rt. Although Pritcha

rd bla m e s the volum e of disc ove ry

for his fa ilure to find e xc ulpa tory e vide nc e , the va st m a

jority of the doc um e nts we re ne arly ide ntic a l form s, a

nd the a lle ge d ly

e xc ulpa tory doc um e nts we re in his own posse ssion. Pritc ha rd a lso did not c arry

his burde n to show tha t a fe w m ore we e ks would like ly have he lpe d the situa

tion, a nd the inc o nve n ie nc e tha

t a longe r c ontinua

nc e would ha

ve im pose d on thec ourt a

nd othe r partie s wa s signific ant. Fina lly , Pritc ha rd fa ils to show ac tua l pre judic e or de m onstra

te how a ny spe c ific doc um e nts would be like ly to ha ve c ha nge d the
re sult. Se eUnite d

State s v . W ilk e s , 662 F.3d 524, 543 (9th C ir. 2011). Se c ond, the distric t c ourt did not a b use its disc re tion whe n it de nie d B la uve lt’ s re que st to c ontinuetria l for one da y . B e c a use the distric t c ourt orde re d Pritc ha rd to pre se nt his de fe nse first, B la uve l t a c tua lly

ha d m ore tim e be fore his pre s e ntation tha

n he re que ste d from

the distric t c ourt. The re fore , B la uve lt c annot show pre judic e from

the de nia l , whic h is fa

ta l to his a

rgum e nt. Se eid
. 3. De fe nda

nts a rgue the y we re de nie d a

fa i r tria l be c a

use of (1) c e rta in
e vide ntia ry rulings, (2) the

gove rnm e nt’ s sta

t e m e nts in c losing a

rgum e nt, a

nd (3)
3the m anne r in whic h the distric t c ourt c onduc te d the tria l. The se a lle g ations did not individually , or in c om

bina tion, re sult in a

n unfa ir tria l. First, De fe nda

nts ide ntify

only one obje c tion a

t tria l to thegove rnm e nt’ s le a ding que stions. Given our de fe re ntia l sta nda rd of re vie w on suc h rulings, se e Unite d State s v . Arc hdale , 229 F.3d 861, 865 (9th C ir. 2000), we c annot sa y on this
re c o rd tha t the distric t c ourt a

b use d its disc re t ion by a llowing the s e que stions. The distric t c o urt a lso did not c om m it pla in e rror by

a llowing W a lke r’ s la

y opinion te stim ony a bout thefilm

industry , whic h wa s ba se d on his understa ndings a nd
e xpe rie nc e s from

working in tha

t industry
. Se eUnite d State s v . Simas , 937 F.2d 459, 464 (9th C ir. 1991). Furthe rm ore , we find no re ve rsible e rror in the distric t
c ourt’ s e v ide ntia

ry rulings re g arding B la

uve lt’ s (1) c onne c tion to Giga pix’ s ba c kground c he c k; (2) unpa id ta xe s; a nd (3) drinking, drug use , a n d atte nding strip
c lubs. Se e Unite d State

s v . Ramire

z , 537 F.3d 1075, 1086–87 (9th C ir. 2008). Se c ond, re vie wing for pla in e rror, the gove rnm e nt’ s sta te m e nts in c losing
argum e nt did not a

m o unt to mi sc onduc t a

nd did not pre

judic e De fe nda

nts. The re wa s a m ple e vide nc e in the re c ord to support the gove rnm e nt’ s re a s ona

b le infe re nc e that Pritc ha rd kne w the Giga

pix a nd OZ3D inve stm e nts we re unlike ly to be profita ble . M ore ove r, to the e xte nt the c ha lle n ge d sta te m e nts we re ina c c urate , the
re c o rd doe s not sugge st the y we re anything other tha

n “ ina dve rte nt m ista

ke s.” Se e Unite d State s v . Lloy d, 807 F.3d 1128, 1167–68 (9th C ir. 2015).
4Third, thedistric t c ourt’ s c onduc t during the proc e e dings did not re sult in a n unfa ir tria l. None of the c h a lle nge d c irc um sta

nc e s, singly

or c um ulat ive ly , le ave us with “ an a

biding im pre ssion tha

t the jury pe rc e ive d

an a p pe aranc e of a dvoc a c y

or pa rtia l ity .” Unite d State

s v . Mark s , 530 F.3d 799, 806 (9th C ir. 2008); s e ealso Unite d State s v . Sc ott , 642 F.3d 791, 799–800 (9th C ir. 2011) (pe r c uriam ). 4. Pritc h a

rd ha s not shown c irc um sta nc e s tha t justify an e xc e ption to our
usua l pra c tic e of re se rving ine ffe c tive a ssista nc e of c o unse l c la im s for c olla te ra l
re vie w, a fte r the re c ord ha s be e n m ore fully de ve lope d. 1 Se e Unite d State s v . Mc G ow a n , 668 F.3d 601, 605–06 (9th C ir. 2012). 5. B e c a

use the fa c ts prove n at tria l fe ll within the sc he m e a lle ge d in the indic tm e nt––c onc e ntrat i ng on De fe nda nts’ m isre pre se ntations a

nd om issions to de fraud vic tim s or obta in the ir m one y ––the gove rnm e nt’ s tria l the ory did not
c onstruc tive l y

am e nd, or m ate ria lly

va ry from , the indic tm e nt. Se e Unite d State s v . Manc u so , 718 F.3d 780, 792 (9th C ir. 2013) (c onstruc tive am e ndm e nt); Unite d State s v . Bhagat , 436 F.3d 1140, 1146–47 (9th C ir. 2006) (m ate ria l va rianc e ). 6. The c ha l le nge d jury instruc tions a c c urate ly

sta te d the la w. The first
c orre c tly instruc te d tha

t the jury “ m ay c onside r e vide nc e of . . . a loss in de te rm i ning whe the r the sc he m e e xiste d .” Se e Farre ll v . Unite d State s , 321 F.2d

1 The re fore , Pritc ha

rd’ s m otion to ta

ke judic ia l notic e , file d Fe brua ry 8, 2016, is DENIED a s m oot. 5409, 419 (9th C ir. 1963); Unite d State s v . Rashe e d , 663 F.2d 843, 850 (9th C ir. 1981). The se c ond a c c urat e ly instruc te d tha

t “ [a ] de fe nda

nt’ s be lie f in the ultim ate
suc c e ss of a

ve nture , e ve n if tha

t be lie f is hone stly

he ld, is not in itse lf a

de fe nse and doe s not justify

or e xc use knowingly

m aking fa lse or m isle a ding sta te m e nts or knowingly

c onc e a ling m ate ria l fa c ts.” Se eUnite d State s v . Hic k e y , 580 F.3d 922, 931 (9th C i r. 2009) (“ [E] ve n if [the de fe nda

nt] ge nuine l y

be lie ve d his inve stm e nt
sc he m e would be profita

b le and would re sult in gains for his inve stors, he would still beguilty

of se c uritie s fra

u d a nd m a i l fra

ud if he knowingly

lie d to inve stors
a bout therisks a ssoc iate d with his pla n.” ). 7. In a

m a il or wire fra

ud c onvic tion, thedistric t c o urt m ust “ orde r re stitution in the am ount of thevic tim ’ s a c t ua l loss,” Unite d State

s v . Thomse n , 830 F.3d 1049, 1065 (9th C ir. 2016); 18 U.S.C . § 3663A(a)(1)–(2), whic h the gove rnm e nt m

ust show by

a pre ponde ran c e of the e vide nc e , Unite d State s v . W ak nine , 543 F.3d 546, 556 (9th C ir. 2008). TheFB I fore nsic a c c ounta nt use d a
re a s ona bly re lia b le m e t hod of c a lc ulating thevic tim s’ a c tua l losse s. Howe ve r, the distric t c o urt orde re d Pritc ha rd to pa y $6 m illion le ss tha

n B la uve lt. B l a uve lt joine d in Pritc h ard’ s re s titution a rgum e nts, a

nd the c ourt provide d no e xpla nation for this substa ntia l diffe re nc e . The re fore , we va c ate Pritc ha rd’ s a nd B la uve lt’ s re stitution orde rs a nd re m and for the distric t c ourt to e xpla in or e lim inate the dispa rity
. AFFIRM E D in par t, V ACAT E D and RE M ANDE D in par t.
6