T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s not * pr e c e de nte xc e pta s pr ovi de d by 9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he H on orabl e L yl e E . S trom , S eni or U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ct ** J udge f orthe D i s tr i c tof

N e br a s ka , s i tt i ng by de s i gna t i on. NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E N IN T H C IR C U IT U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , P l ai nt i ff

-A pp el l ee , v. W YV ON I A W ARE, D e f

e n d a n t- A p p e lle n t. N o. 08- 50529 Di s t . C t . No . 2 : 0 7 - c r - 0 1 3 7 9 - S VW

ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e C e n tr a l D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia S t e phe n V . W i l s on, D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng A r gue d a nd S ubm i tt e d O c t obe r7, 2010

P a s a d e n a , C a lif

o rn ia B ef ore: F IS H E R and B Y B E E , C i rc ui tJudg es , and S T R O M , D i stri ctJudg e. ** W y v o n iaW a r e w a s in d ic te d o n th r e e c o u n ts o f k n o w in g ly a n d w illf

u lly unde r s t a t i ng he ri nc om e t o the D e pa r tm e ntof H ous i ng of

U rba n D e ve l opm e nt 

# FI LED NO V 19 2010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS-2-

( “ H U D ” ) i n or de rt o obt a i n f e de r a l l ow - i nc om e hous i ng be ne f i t s f r om the S e c t i on 8 H ous i ng C hoi c e V ouc he rP r ogr a m ( “ S e c t i on 8 pr ogr a m ” ) i n 2003, 2004, a nd 2005, i n v i ol at i on of 18 U . S . C . § 1 00 1. T he H ou si ng A utho ri ty of L os A ng el es (“ H o u si n g A u th o ri ty”) l o cal l y ad m i n i st ers th e S ect i o n 8 p ro g ram , an d W are’s fal se s t a t e m e nt s w e r e m a de on i nc om e c e r t i f i c a t i on f orm s s he s ubm i tt e d t o the H ous i ng A u th o r ity . A ju ry f

o u n d W a r e g u ilty o f

a ll th r e e c o u n ts . A cr i m e i s c om m i tt ed un der 18 U . S . C . § 1 00 1 w hen som eone, “ i n any m att er w i thi n the j uri sdi ct i on of the execut i ve . . . branch of the G ov ernm entof the U ni t ed S t a t e s , know i ngl y a nd w i l l f ul l y . . . m a ke s a ny m a t e r i a l l y f a l s e , f i c t i t i ous , or f r au d u le n t s ta te m e n t o rr e p r e s e n ta tio n .” 1 8 U .S .C . § 1 0 0 1 ( a ) ( 2 ) ; se e al so U ni ted S ta te s v . A ta lig , 5 0 2 F . 3 d 1 0 6 3 , 1 0 6 6 (9 th C i r. 2 0 0 7 ) (st at i n g th e g o v ern m en tm u st pr ove ( 1) as t a t e m e nt , ( 2) f a l s i ty , ( 3) m a t e r i a l i ty , ( 4) know l e dge , a nd ( 5) ju r is d ic tio n to o b ta in ac o n v ic tio n u n d e r§ 1 0 0 1 ) . O n app ea l , W ar e r ai se s f ou r a ss i gn m ent s of e rr or, no ne of w hi ch w er e r ai se d be f or e the di s tr i c tc ourt . B e c aus e W a r e f a i l e d t o r a i s e the s e i s s ue s be f or e the d is tr ic t c o u rt, th is c o u rt r e v ie w s th e m f o rp la in e rr o r . See F e d . R . C r im . P . 5 2 ( b ) . F i rs t , W ar e argues the di stri ctcourtcom m i tt ed pl ai n err or i n fai l i ng t o fi nd there w a s i ns uf

f i c i e nte vi de nc e t o s uppor taf i ndi ng by the j ury of

§ 1001’ s j ur i s di c t i on e le m e n t. U n d e rth e p la in e rr o rs ta n d a r d , “[ t]h e c o u r t w o u ld b e r e lu c ta n t to s u s ta in-3-

a c on vi ct i on i f i tcoul d b e c l earl y s ee n from the re cord thatthe evi dence w as i nsuffi ci ent . ” U

n ite d S ta te s v . A lv a r ez - V

a le n z u e la , 23 1 F . 3d 11 98 , 12 01 (9th C i r. 2000) . W he n de t e rm i ni ng w he the rs uf f i c i e nte vi de nc e s uppor t s ac onvi c t i on, the co u rtv i ew s th e ev i d en ce i n th e l i g h tm o stfav o rab l e t o th e p ro secu t i o n an d m u st af fi rm i f “ any r a t i ona l tr i e rof f a c tc oul d ha ve f

ound the e s s e nt i a l e l e m e nt s of the cr i m e bey on d a re as on abl e dou bt . ” U n ite d S ta te s v . N

e v ils , 598 F . 3d 1158, 1161 ( 9th C i r . 2010) ( e n ba nc ) ( quot i ng J a c k s o n v . V ir g in ia , 44 3 U . S . 30 7, 31 9 (19 79 )) ( in te rn a l q u o ta tio n m a rk s o m itte d ) . A fa l se st at em enti s m ade w i thi n the execut i ve branch’ s j uri sdi ct i on w hen the execut i ve branch “ has the po w ert o exerci se autho ri ty i n a part i cul arsi tuat i on . ” See U n i ted S ta tes v. R o d

g ers , 46 6 U . S . 47 5, 47 9 (19 84 ); U ni te d State s v . Fac c hi ni , 87 4 F . 2d 63 8, 64 1 (9th C i r. 19 89 ) ( en banc). T hi s c ou rthas pre vi ou sl y r ec og ni ze d tha tw he n the r e i s adi r e c tr e l a t i on be tw e e n af a l s e s t a t e m e nta nd the pa y m e ntof f e d e r a l b e n e f

its , ju r is d ic tio n is s a tis f

ie d . A ta lig , 5 0 2 F .3 d a t 1 0 6 8 ; Fac c hi ni , 874 F . 2d a t643. I n thi s c a s e , the j ury he a r d e vi de nc e tha tH U D i s r e s pons i bl e f or f undi ng the S e c t i on 8 pr ogr a m a nd s e t s a l l the r e gul a t i ons a nd s t a nda r ds f orthe S e c t i on 8 pr ogr a m . M or e ove r , m a ny of the S e c t i on 8 pr ogr a m i nc om e c e r t i f i c a t i on form s thatW ar e c om pl et ed, w hi ch the go vernm entoffe re d i nt o evi dence, c o n t a i n e d e x p l i c i tw a rn i n g s t o ap p l i c a n t s th a tf a l s e s t a t e me n t s ma d e o n th e f o rms-4-

c ons t i tut e d ac r i m e unde r§ 1001. W he n vi e w e d i n the l i ghtm os tf a vor abl e t o the p ro secu t i o n , su ffi ci en tev i d en ce su p p o rt ed th e j u ry’ s fi n d i n g th atW are’s fal se s t a t e m e nt s i n he ri nc om e c e rt i f i c a t i on f orm s t o the H ous i ng A uthor i ty w e r e m a de i n am a tt e rw i thi n H U D ’ s j ur i s di c t i on. S ec on d, W ar e argues the di stri ctcourtcom m i tt ed pl ai n err or w hen i tfa i l ed t o fi n d i n su ffi ci en tev i d en ce su p p o rt ed th e j u ry’ s fi n d i n g th atW are’s fal se st at em ent s w er e m at er i al . A fa l se st at em ent“ i s m at er i al i f i thas anatural t endency to in f lu e n c e , o rw a s c ap ab le o f in f lu e n c in g , th e d e c is io n o f th e [ a g e n c y ] to w h ic h it w as addres se d. ” Kun gys v . U ni ted Stat es , 48 5 U . S . 75 9, 77 0 (19 88 ) ( i nt ernal q u o ta tio n m a rk s o m itte d ) ; s e e al s o Fac c hi ni , 8 7 4 F .2 d a t 6 4 3 ( “A s ta te m e n t is c ons i de r e d m a t e r i a l i f

i tha s the pr ope ns i ty t o i nf l ue nc e a ge nc y a c t i on. ” ) . T he evi dence vi ew ed i n the l i gh tm ostfa vo rabl e t o the prosecut i on dem on stra t es that W a r e ’ s f a l s e s t a t e m e nt s r e ga r di ng he ri nc om e w e r e m a t e r i a l be c aus e S e c t i on 8 p r o g r a m b e n e f

its a r e c a lc u la te d u s in g th e a m o u n t o f in c o m e a n ap p lic a n t d is c lo s e s . A n appl i c a nt ’ s f

a i l ur e t o a c c ur a t e l y di s c l os e i nc om e w i l l a f f e c tthe c om put a t i on of S e c tio n 8 p r o g r a m b e n e f its a n d m a y r e s u lt in a n o v e rp a y m e n t o f b e n e f its . S uffi ci entevi dence s up po rt ed the j ury’ s f i nd i ng thatW ar e’ s f

al se st at em ent s w er e m a te r ia l.-5-

T hi rd, W ar e argues the di stri ctcourtcom m i tt ed pl ai n err or w hen i tgave a j ury i ns truc t i on r e ga r di ng § 1001’ s j ur i s di c t i on e l e m e nt . E ve n a s s um i ng, w i thout de c i di ng, tha tthe di s tr i c tc ourte rr e d w he n i ti ns truc t e d the j ury , the e rr orw a s not “s o c le a r - c u t, s o o b v io u s , ac o m p e te n t d is tr ic t ju d g e s h o u ld b e ab le to a v o id it w i tho utbenefi tof obj ec t i on . ” U n ite d S ta te s v . W

a h id , 6 1 4 F .3 d 1 0 0 9 , 1 0 1 5 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 1 0 ) . T h e r e f

o r e , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t d id n o t c o m m it p la in e rr o r . F i nal l y, W ar e argues the di stri ctcourtcom m i tt ed pl ai n err or by vi ol at i ng her r i ght s unde rthe D oubl e J e opa r dy C l aus e , w he n pr i ort o ope ni ng s t a t e m e nt s the di stri ctcourtdi sm i ss ed a s w orn j uror for heal th rea sons and rec on vened the veni re pa ne l t o s e l e c tar e pl a c e m e ntj ur orr a the rtha n us i ng the a l t e rna t e j ur or . A l though j e opa r dy a tt a c he d t o W a r e w he n the j ury w a s i ni t i a l l y s w orn, thi s or i gi na l j e opa r dy d id n o t te rm in a te w ith th e s w o rn ju r o r ’s d is m is s a l. Se e U ni te d State s v . T

r i gg , 988 F . 2d 1008, 1009- 10 ( 9th C i r . 1993) ( c i t i ng R i chardson v. U ni ted Stat es , 4 6 8 U . S. 317, 325 ( 1984) ) . S i nc e W a r e ’ s or i gi na l j e opa r dy ne ve rt e rm i na t e d, s he w a s not p u t in je o p a r d y m o r e th a n o n c e a n d th e D o u b le J e o p a r d y C lau s e is n o t im p lic a te d . A FFI R M ED .