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. EDUAR DO R UIZ, De fe nda

nt - Appe lla

nt. No. 12-50447

D.C . No. 8:10-c r-00127-DOC -1 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 Dav id O. C arte r, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d August 4, 2015 ** Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : D.W . NELSON, SILVER M AN, a nd WA RDLAW , C irc uit Judge s.



# FIL ED AUG 11 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. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).Edua

rdo R uiz a ppe a ls his c onvic t ions for m a il fra ud a nd c onspira c y to c om m it m a il fra

ud, a s we ll a s his re sulting 108-m onth se nte nc e . W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . §1291 a nd a ffirm . 1. The distric t c ourt did not err in de ny ing R uiz ’ s m otion to dism

iss for viola tion of theSpe e dy

Tria l Ac t. At theve ry

le a st, the pe riod of Nove m be r 8, 2011, to M arc h 13, 2012, wa s prope rly e xc lude d unde r 18 U.S.C . § 3161(h)(7), and the ove rla

pping pe riod of M arc h

6, 2012, to M arc h 26, 2012, wa s prope rly e xc lude d unde r 18 U.S.C . § 3161(h)(1)(H). As to the first tim e pe riod, the “ e nds of justic e ” c ontinua

nc e grante d by

the distric t c ourt wa s “ spe c ific a lly lim ite d in tim e ” and “

justifie d on the re c ord with re fe re nc e to the fa c t s a s of the tim e the de la y [wa s] orde re d.” Unite d State s v . Ramire

z-C orte z , 213 F.3d 1149, 1154 (9th C ir. 2000) (inte rna l quota t ion m arks a

nd a lte rations omitte d). Furthe r, a distric t c ourt gra nting a n “ e nd of justic e ” c ontinua nc e ne e d not c onte m

pora ne ously se t down the fa c tua l pre dic at e for tha t de te rm ination; sim

ulta ne ous findings a

re unne c e ssa

ry “ so long a s the tria l c ourt la te r shows tha

t the de la y wa s m o tiva

te d by prope r c onside rations.” Unite d State s v . Bry ant , 726 F.2d 510, 511 (9th C ir. 1984) (pe r c uriam ). W e a lso notetha t the re c ord is c le ar that

R uizwa s the “ m oving forc e ” be hind thegrant of the c ontinua n c e . Se e Unite d State

s v . Gallardo , 773 F.2d 1496, 1506 (9th C ir. 1985). 2As to these c o n d tim e pe riod, e ve n we re the M arc h 6, 2012, disc o ve ry

m otion R uizfile d to be c onside re d a pro form a

disc ove ry

m o tion involving no live dispute , the distric t c ourt wa s a llowe d to e xc lude 30 da y s from M arc h 6—

the date of the la s t filing of supporting pa pe rs— and tria l c om

m e nc e d le s s tha n 30 da y s la te r on M arc h 27, 2012. U

n ite d State

s v . Me dina , 524 F.3d 974, 979 (9th C ir. 2008) (c iting Unite d State

s v . Sutte r , 340 F.3d 1022, 1029–32 (9th C ir. 2003)). Exc luding the se two tim e pe riods, a s we ll a s the othe r unc h a lle nge d c o ntinua nc e s, no m ore tha

n 70 une xc lude d

da y s pa sse d be twe e n R

uiz ’ s first a

ppe ara nc e and the c om m e n c e m e nt of tria l. The re fore , no Spe e d y Tria l Ac t viola

t ion oc c urre d. Se e 18 U.S.C . § 3161(c )(1). 2. The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion in finding tha t the gove rnm e nt pre se nte d suffic ie nt e vide nc e to sa tisfy its prim a fa c ie burde n tha t the e m a ils we re what the gove rnm e nt c la im s the y we re : e m a ils to a

nd from Gilm a R uiz and/or R uiz . Se e U

n ite d State

s v . Tank , 200 F.3d 627, 630 (9th C ir. 2000). M ildre d M ora le s’ s te s tim ony , Age nt Dokte r’ s te stim ony , Ya hoo c ustodia

n of re c o rd Dougla s Nola

n’ s te stim ony , a

nd Gilm a R uiz ’ s note book c olle c tive ly provide d a

suffic ie nt ba sis for thedistric t c ourt’ s rulings tha t the e m a ils ha d be e n prope rly a uthe ntic ate d .

33. The distric t c ourt ne ithe r a buse d its disc re tion in a dm itting the e m a ils a s c o c onspira

tor sta te m e nts nor c om

m itte d c l e ar e rror in finding the unde rly ing fa c t ua l re quire m e nts we re m e t. Se e Unite d State s v . Moran , 493 F.3d 1002, 1010 (9th C ir. 2007) (pe r c uriam ). Age nt Dokte r’ s te stim ony an d M ora le s’ s te stim ony provide d suffic ie nt grounds for the distric t c ourt to find (1) “ a c onspira c y

e xiste d at the t im e the sta

te m e nt[s] w[e re ] m a de ” ; (2) R uiz“ ha d knowle d ge of, a

nd pa rtic i pate d in, thec onspira c y ” ; a nd (3) “ the sta

te m e nt[s] w[e re ] m a de in furthe ran c e of the c o nspira c y .” Unite d State s v . Bow man , 215 F.3d 951, 960–61 (9th C ir. 2000) (c iting B ourjaily v . Unite d State

s , 483 U.S. 171, 175 (1987)). To the e xte nt the distric t

c ourt m ay

have a buse d its disc re t ion in a dm itting one e m a il c ha in from

M ay 2007— a fte r the late st de finitivedate M ora le s te s tifie d R uiz worke d at Pre m ie r One R e a lty , April 2007—any suc h e rror wa s ha rm le s s be c a

use the e m a il c ha in c onta i n e d inform ation simi la r to the m ultipleothe r, prope rly a dm itte d e m a ils. C

f . Unite d State

s v . Mac ias , 789 F.3d 1011, 1022 (9th C ir. 2015) (“ Whe re the re ha s be e n a

nonc o nstitutiona

l e rror, we m

ust re ve rse unle ss the re is a fa ir a ssura

nc e of ha rm le s sne ss, or, sta

te d othe rwise , unle ss it is more proba ble tha n not tha t the e rror did not m ate ria lly a ffe c t the ve rdic t.” (inte rna l quota tion m arks om i tte d) (quoting Unite d State s v . Morale

s , 108 F.3d 1031, 1040 (9th C i r. 1997) (e n ba nc ))). 44. The distric t c ourt did not c om m it proc e dura l e rror in se nte nc i ng R uiz to 108 m onths’ im

prisonm e nt. First, the

distric t c ourt did not c le arly e rr in finding that the orga n iz e r/le a de r e nha

nc e m e nt unde r § 3B 1.1(a ) of the Se nte nc ing Guide line s a

pplie d to R

uiz . Se e Unite d State

s v . Yi , 704 F.3d 800, 805, 807 (9th C ir. 2013). The re wa s suffic ie nt e vide nc e tha t R u izorga niz e d Pre m i e r One R e a lty to ge ne rate fra

udule nt loa

n pa c ka ge s a

nd tha t he tra ine d at le a s t five e m ploy e e s of Pre m ie r One R e a lty

in this ille ga l ve nture . Se e id. at 807. Se c o nd, R uiz ha s not m e t his burde n of e sta

blishing tha

t the distric t c ourt re lie d

on a c le a rly e rrone ous fa c t in se nte nc ing him

to 108 m onths’ im

prisonm e nt. Se e Unite d

State s v . C hriste nse n , 732 F.3d 1094, 1103 (9th C ir. 2013). Although the distric t c ourt m ay have ina rtfully de sc ribe d Gilm a

R uiza s “ m inim a lly

involve d” in the unde rly ing fraudule nt sc h e m e , the re c ord e sta blishe s tha

t the ove ra ll te nor of the se nte nc ing he aring wa s tha

t R uizwa s re lative ly

m ore c ulpa

ble and e xe rc ise d m ore c ontrol ove r the e nte rprise tha

n Gilm a R uizdid, a finding tha

t is not c le arly

e rrone o us. As suc h , we are not “ le ft with the d e finite and firm c onvic tion tha

t a m ista ke ha s be e n c om m itte d.” Id. (inte rna l quota tion m arks a

nd c ita tion omitte d). AFFIRM E D.

5