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. LOUIS JOSEPH VADINO, AKA Edwa rd Estra te , AKA Sa lvat ore Filippone , AKA Louis J. Va dino,

De fe nda nt-Appe l la

nt. No. 17-50135

D.C . No. 8:12-c r-00128-AG-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 Andre w J. Guilford, District Judge , Pre siding Argue d and Subm itte d June 5, 2020 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : R

AW LINSON a

n d N.R . SM ITH, C irc uit Judge s, a nd KOR M AN, ** Distric t Judge
. De fe nda nt Louis Jose

ph Va dino a

ppe a ls his c onvic tions a

nd se nte nc e s for: (a ) tax e v a sion in viola

tion of 26 U.S.C . § 7201 (“ C ount 1” ); (b) m aking a fa lse 

# FIL ED
JUN 24 2020 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, 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 Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The Honora

ble Edwa rd R . Korm an, Unite d Stat e s Distric t Judge for the E a s te rn Distric t of Ne w York, sitting by de signa tion.sta

te m e nt to a fe de ra l a ge nc y in viola tion of 18 U.S.C . § 1001(a) (“ C o unt 2” ); (c ) fa iling to a

ppe ar in viola

tion of 18 U.S.C . § 3146(a)(1), (b)(1)(A)(ii) (“ C ount 3” ); (d) c o nspira c y

in viola t ion of 18 U.S.C . § 371 (“ C ount 4” ); (e ) a iding a nd a b e tting the m aking of fa lse sta

t e m e nt s on pa ssport a

pplic ations in viola

t ion of 18 U.S.C
. § 1542 (“ C ounts 5 a

nd 6” ); a nd (f) a i ding a

nd a be tting a ggravate d

ide ntity the ft in viola tion of 18 U.S.C . § 1028A(a)(1) (“ C ounts 7 a nd 8” ). W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291, a n d we a ffirm in pa

rt a n d re ve rse in pa

rt. 1. Va dino a

rgue s tha t the supe rse ding indic tm e nt should ha ve be e n dismisse d with pre judic e , be c a

use the distric t c ourt unre a sona bly grante d his c ode fe nda

nt a n

“ e n ds of justic e ” c ontinua n c e of the tria l da

te without suffic ie nt justific ation, in viola tion of theSpe e dy

Tria l Ac t. B e c a

use we do not find tha

t the distric t c ourt
c le arly e rre d in de te rm ining tha

t the c ontinua

nc e wa s a n e xc l uda ble pe riod of de la

y unde r 18 U.S.C . § 3161(h)(6) a nd (h)(7), we a ffirm

the distric t c ourt’ s de nia l of Va dino’ s m otion to dism

iss thesupe rse ding indic tm e nt. Se e Unite d State s v . Murillo , 288 F.3d 1126, 1133 (9th C ir. 2002); se ealso United State s v . Le w is , 611 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th C ir. 2010). 2. Va dino a

rgue s tha t the distric t c ourt c o m

m itte d re ve rsible e rror by re fusing to instruc t the jury

to a ssum e tha

t pote ntia lly

re l e va nt e vide nc e de stroy e d by

the Gove rnm e nt wa s favora

ble to his de fe nse . “ The rule gove rning sa n c tions for lost or
2de stroy e d e vide nc e ” is se t forth in Unite d State s v . Loud Haw

k, 628 F.2d 1139, 1151–56 (9th C ir. 1979) (e n ba nc ) (Ke nne dy , J., c o nc urring), re v e r se d on othe r grounds in Unite

d State s v . W .R. Grac e , 526 F.3d 499, 506 (9th C ir. 2008). Unite d State s v . Robe r tson , 895 F.3d 1206, 1213 (9th C ir. 2018). Thedistric t c o urt a buse d its disc re t ion by

fa iling to a

pply Loud Hawk ’ s rule in de t e rm ining theprope r jury instruc tion to re m e dy

the Gove rnm e nt’ s de struc tion of e vide nc e . Se e Unite d State s
v . Siv illa , 714 F.3d 1168, 1172–73 (9th C ir. 2013). Give n the distric t c ourt’ s e rror, “ w e m u st re ve rse unle ss the re is a ‘ fa ir
a ssura nc e ’ of ha rm le ssne ss or, sta

te d othe rwise , unle ss it is more proba b le tha n not that the e rror did not m at e ria lly a ffe c t the ve rdic t.” U

nite d State

s v . Gonzale

zFlore s , 418 F.3d 1093, 1099 (9th C ir. 2005) (a lte ration a d o pte d a nd e m pha sis
a dde d) (quoting Unite d State s v . Morale

s , 108 F.3d 1031, 1040 (9th C i r. 1997) (e n ba nc )). “ The burde n

to show the

ha rm le ssne ss of the e rror is on thegove rnm e nt,
and in therare c a se in whic h we find ourse lve s in e q uipoisea s to theha

rm le ssne ss of the e rror, re ve rsa l is re quire d .” Id. B e c a use the Gove rnm e nt ha s fa ile d to m e e t its burde n to show the

ha rm le ssne ss of the distric t c ourt’ s e rror, we m ust re ve rse Va dino’ s c onvic tions for C o unts 1 a nd 2. 3. W e have the disc re t ion “ to va c ate [and re m and] a ll of these nte nc e s im pose d by a distric t c ourt whe n

the distric t

c ourt e rre d

with re spe c t

to one of the
3se nte nc e s.” Unite d State s v . Ev ans-Martine

z , 611 F.3d 635, 645 (9th C ir. 2010). On re m an d, the distric t

c ourt ha s the a

uthority to “ re se nte nc e a

de fe nda nt on e a c h
c ount re m ande d

by the a ppe lla te c o urt, e ve n if the distric t c o urt ha d m a de no e rror with re spe c t to a

pa rtic u la r c ount.” Id. W e the re fore va c at e a ll of Va dino’ s
se nte nc e s a

nd re m and for re se nte nc i ng. W e AFFIRMVa dino’ s c onvic tions for C ounts 3–8, but RE V E RSE and V ACAT E his c onvic t ions for C ounts 1 a n d 2 a nd RE M AND both c ounts for a
ne w tria l. W e a lso V ACAT E a ll of Va d ino’ s se nte nc e s a nd RE M AND for
re se nte nc ing. 1

1 B e c a use we re m and for a

ne w tria l on C ounts 1 a

nd 2 a nd re m and for re se nte nc ing, we do not a ddre ss the re m a i ning issue s ra i se d on a ppe a l. 4Unite d

State s v . V adino , Case No. 17-50135 Raw linson, Cir c uit Judge , c onc ur r ing I c onc ur in the c onc lusion tha t this c a s e should be re m ande d for a re tria l on
c ounts onean d two. I re a c h this c onc lusion only be c a use the distric t judge de c ide d that a de struc tion-of-e vide nc e instruc tion wa s wa rrante d. Ha

v ing de c ide d tha

t a n instruc tion wa s wa

rrante d, the be tte r pra c tic e would ha v e be e n for the distric t c ourt to give the m ode l jury

instruc tion or m ak e a

re c ord to support the

give n instruc tion. Se e Unite d State

s v . Hairston , 64 F.3d 491, 494 (9th C ir. 1995) (e xpla ining tha t a de fe nda n t is e ntitle d to instruc tions tha t ha ve “ s om e founda

tion in the

e vide nc e ” ). Unfortuna

te ly , the distric t c o urt did ne ithe r. And the re c ord doe s not e sta blish
une quivoc a lly

tha t the de fe nda

nt suffe re d a

ny pre judic e from the la c k of a

n a dve rse infe re n c e in his fa

vor due to the gove rnm e nt’ s de struc tion of e vide nc e . For tha t
re a s on, I c onc ur in the c onc lusion tha t the c onvic tions on c ounts oneand two
c annot sta nd. I a lso a gre e that unde r our pre c e de nt whe n one or m ore c onvic tions is inva lida t e d, the se nte n c e be c o m e s unbundle d and m u st be re m ande d for im

position of a ne w se nte nc e . Se e Unite d State s v . Ruiz-Alvare

z , 211 F.3d 1181, 1182 (9th C ir. 2000), as ame nde d
. I fully c onc ur in the m a

jority ’ s disc ussion of the Spe e dy Tria l Ac t c ha lle nge . 

# FIL ED
JUN 24 2020 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

1