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. THERE SA FISHER ,

De fe nda n t-Appe l la

nt. No. 15-50306

D.C . No. 8:14-c r-00110-JLS-2
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 Jose phine L. Staton, Distric t Judge , Pre siding A rgue d a nd Subm itte d

August 29, 2016 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : TASHIM A, SILVER M AN, a nd WATFORD, C irc uit Judge s. De fe nda nt-a ppe l la nt The re s a

Fishe r c onte nds tha

t the distric t c ourt
c om m itte d se ve ra l e rrors tha

t individual ly

an d c um ulative ly c re a te d

suffic i e nt pre j udic e to wa

rrant a ne w tria l. W e disa gre e and the re fore a ffirm he r c onvic tion. 

# FIL ED SEP 14 2016 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.Pa ge 2 of 4

1. W e a gre e with Fishe r that the distric t c ourt should not ha v e a dm itte d the portion of Lindsa

y Ha rdgrav e s’ c o nfe ssion tha

t inc ulpa te d Fishe r. B e c a

use Hardgrave s did not te stify at tria l, a dm ission of tha

t portion of he r c onfe s sion viola te d Fishe r’ s C onfronta

tion C la use rights. Se e Bruton v
. Unite d State s , 391 U.S. 123, 126 (1968). Howe ve r, Fishe r did not obje c t to a d m i ssion of this
e vide nc e at

tria l, so we m ay

re v ie w only

for pla in e rror. Eve n a ssum ing tha t the
e rror wa s c le ar and obvious, Fishe r c annot show tha

t a dm i ssion of this evide nc e a ffe c te d he r substa

ntia l rights. Se e Unite d State s v . Olano , 507 U.S. 725, 734 (1993). The gove rnm e nt’ s c a se a ga inst Fishe r wa s strong, pre dic a te d in pa rt on the following e vide nc e : te s tim ony by five witne sse s who c la im e d to ha ve be e n c oa c he d by Fishe r; te stim ony

by a c o-c onspira

tor tha t both shean d Fishe r we re pre s sure d to bring in pa

tie nts for insura

nc e -c ove re d proc e dure s; forge d doc tors’ note s with Fishe r’ s ha

ndwriting; te xt m e ssa ge s be twe e n Fishe r and pa tie nts
re ga rding insura

nc e c ove ra ge for c osm e tic proc e dure s; a nd re c ordings of Fishe r on the p hone with one of the patie n ts disc ussing insura nc e c o ve ra ge . This e vide nc e ove rwhe lm ingly

im plic a te d Fishe r in the m a il fra ud sc he m e . As a

re sult, we
c annot sa y that the Bruton e rror a ffe c te d Fishe r’ s substa n tia l rights. 2. The vide ota

pe of Fishe r’ s m e e ting with the unde rc o v e r a ge nt wa s a dm issible , notwithsta

nding thegove rnm e nt’ s e rrone ous he arsay obje c tion. W ePa ge 3 of 4

will a ssum e tha

t Fishe r prope rly

sought to introduc e the vide ota pe . None the le ss, we c onc lude tha

t e xc lusion of the

ta pe wa s ha rm le s s e rror give n

the gove rnm e nt’ s strong c a se a ga inst Fishe r. Eve n whe n c om

bine d with the Bruton e rror m e ntione d a bove , the e rror in
e xc luding thevide ota

pe doe s not wa

rrant a ne w tria l. The gove rnm e n t ha s shown, ba se d on the stre ngth of the e vide nc e pre se nte d at tria l, tha

t it is more proba

ble tha n not tha t the se two e rrors “ d id not m a te ria lly a ffe c t the ve rdic t.” Se eUnite d State s v . Gonzale

z-Flore s , 418 F.3d 1093, 1099 (9th C ir. 2005). 3. The distric t c ourt did not err in giving a de l ibe rate av oida

nc e instruc tion. A de l ibe rate avoida

nc e instruc t ion m ay

be give n whe n a c rim ina l sta

tute re quire s that the de fe n da

nt a c t e d “ knowingly ,” a s is thec a se he re . Se e Unite d State s v . J e w e ll , 532 F.2d 697, 702–04 (9th C ir. 1976) (e n ba nc ). Fishe r argue s tha

t the jury
m ight ha v e c onvic te d he r m e re ly

upon finding tha

t she de libe ra t e ly

avoide d le arning tha

t the proc e dure s we re not m e dic a lly ne c e ssa ry , without a lso finding that she kne w the proc e dure s we re fra udule ntly bille d to insura

nc e c om pa nie s. This a rgum e nt ignore s the fa c t tha t the jury wa s re quire d

to find tha

t Fishe r a c te d with a n “ inte nt to de fraud” in a ddition to finding tha t she a c te d knowingly . In orde r to find a

n inte nt to de fraud, the jury m ust ha v e found tha

t Fishe r inte nde d to de fraud som e one or som e thing, a nd in this c a se tha

t wa s the insura

nc e c o m pa nie s.Pa ge 4 of 4

4. Fishe r c onte nds tha

t unde r Appre ndi v . N

e w J e rse y , 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000), the jury

wa s re quire d

to find the fa c ts tha

t form the ba sis for the re stitution de te rm i nation. This a

rgum e nt is fore c lose d by

our de c isions in Unite d State s v . Gre e n , 722 F.3d 1146, 1149 (9th C ir. 2013), Unite d State s v . Ey raud, 809 F.3d 462, 471 (9th C ir. 2015), a nd Unite d State

s v . Alv are

z , __ F.3d __, 2016 W L4547362 (9th C i r. Se pt. 1, 2016). As we note d in Ey raud, Appre ndi

doe s not
a pply to re stitution orde

rs, a nd Paroline

v . Unite d State

s , 134 S. C t. 1710, 1726 (2014), doe s not disc re dit tha t holding. 809 F.3d a

t 471. AFFIRM E D
.U.S. v. Fishe r, 15-50306

SILVERM AN, C irc uit Judge , c onc urring:

I c onc ur in the re sult. It would ha ve be e n e rror for the distric t c ourt to ha ve a dm itte d Ha rgrave s’ s sta

te m e nt ove r a B ruton obje c t ion. B ut the re wa s n’ t any Bruton obje c t ion or a

ny othe r obje c tion. A pa

rty m ay have pe rfe c tly

va lid re a sons for de c lining to obje c t to e vide nc e tha t is te c h nic a lly

obje c tiona

ble , but tha

t c a use s no ha rm in the c o n te xt of the fa c ts a nd the the ory

of the de fe nse . Just a s a

n a ppe lla te la wy e r c hoose s whic h rulings to c ha lle nge on a ppe a l a nd whic h one s to le t go, the sa

m e is true of tria l la

wy e rs a nd obje c tions. Not eve ry witne ss ha s to be
c ross-e xam ine d; not e ve ry e vide ntia ry obje c tion ha s to be m a de . Good la wy e rs pic k the ir fights.

W hy didn’ t de fe nse c ounse l ra ise a Bruton obje c tion he re ? The an swe r is: W e don’ t know. C ounse l m ay

have ha d a strat e gic re a son for his de c ision, or he
m ay have be e n a sle e p at the switc h. If it’ s the latte r, tha t’ s wha t a § 2255 m otion pre m ise d on ine ffe c tive a ssista n c e c ounse l is for. Howe ve r, I don’ t a gre e tha t it
wa s e rror pe r se for the judge to ha ve a dm itte d te stim ony

tha t wa s n’ t obje c te d to,
e ve n if it c ould ha

ve be e n . 

# FIL ED SEP 14 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S
. CO URT O F APPEALS