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. R IC HARD G. RENZI,

De fe nda nt-Appe l la

nt. No. 16-10016

D.C . No. 4:08-c r-00212-DC B -B PV-1
M EM O R ANDUM *

UNITED STATES OF AM ER IC A,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lle e , v. JAM ES W . SANDLIN,

De fe nda nt-Appe l la

nt. No. 16-10019

D.C . No. 4:08-c r-00212-DC B -B PV-2

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ariz o na David C . B ury , Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d M arc h

16, 2017 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia 

# F IL ED APR 26 2017 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.B e fore : WARDLAW , GOULD, a nd C ALLAHAN, C irc uit Judge s. Form e r Ariz ona

C ongre ssm a

n R ic ha rd R e nz i a

nd his c o-de fe nda

nt Ja m e s Sandlin (ofte n re fe rre d to c olle c tive ly a s R e nz i a s the ir inte re sts in the se a ppe a ls do not dive rge ) we re c onvic te d by a jury on c ha rge s of c o nspira c y , hone st-se rvic e s fraud, e xtortion, mone y

la unde ring, m aking fa l se sta te m e nts to insura

n c e re gula tors, a nd ra c ke te e ring. W e a ffirm e d the ir c onvic tions. U

nite d State

s v . Re nzi , 769 F.3d 731 (9th C ir. 2014), c e rt. de nie d , 135 S. C t. 2889 (2015). The re a fte r, R e nz i file d a

m otion for a

ne w tria l, a lle g ing tha

t the Gove rnm e nt withhe ld m ate ria l e vide n c e and knowingly m a d e fa lse sta

te m e nts a t tria l in viola tion of Brady

v . Mary land, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), Giglio v . Unite d State s , 405 U.S. 150 (1972), a

nd N apuev . Illinois , 360 U.S. 264 (1959). The Distric t C ourt found tha t c e rta in m ate ria ls fa

vora b le to R e nz i ha d be e n suppre s se d, but de nie d the
m otion, c onc l uding tha

t e vide nc e a lle ge dly

de m o nstra

ting tha t Philip Arie s, a c ritic a l witne ss a ga inst R e nz i, ha d a fina nc ia l inc e ntive did not underm ine the
c ourt’ s c o nfide nc e in the jury ve rdic t . This c ourt ha s jurisdic tion pursua nt to 28 U.S.C . § 1291, a

nd we a ffirm
. 1. W e re vie wde novo thede nia l of a m o tion for a

ne w tria l ba se d on a Brady c la im
. Unite d State

s v . Mazzare lla , 784 F.3d 532, 537 (9th C ir. 2015). Assum ing c e rta in m ate ria ls fa vora ble to R e nz i we re suppre sse d , R e nz i is e ntitle d to
2re lie f only

if he shows tha

t the “ ne w e vide nc e is suffic ie nt to unde rm ine
c onfide nc e in the ve rdic t .” W e arry v . C ain , 136 S. C t. 1002, 1006 (2016) (pe r c uriam ) (inte rna l quota

tion m arks om itte d ). The Gove rnm e nt fa ile d to disc lose : (1) a n FB I a ge nt’ s note s from

the initia l
m e e ting with Arie s whic h indic ate d tha t Joa nne Ke e ne , R e nz i’ s Distric t Dire c tor,
and not R e nz i, first m e ntione d the San dlin prope rty ; (2) tha t FB I Age nt Odom

told Arie s in Nove m

b e r 2006, whe n Arie s he sita te d in c a lling Re nz i, tha

t m aking suc h a
c a ll wa s the ty

pe of thing for whic h he m ight be re warde d; a nd (3) tha t Arie s wa s give n sta n da rd Adm onishm e nt form s tha t a dvise d tha

t if he wa s c om

pe nsate d, the
c om pe nsation would be

taxa ble
. The distric t c ourt wa s prope rly c ritic a l of the Gove rnm e nt’ s fa ilure to disc lose t he se m atte rs prior to trial, but the y do not go to the

c ore of the jury ’ s ve rdic t. At tria l, Arie s a d m itte d on c ross e xam ination tha t he ha d initially inc o rre c t ly

te stifie d tha

t R e nz i, not Ke e ne , ha d first introduc e d the Sandlin prope rty . Howe ve r, Arie s re a sona bly c onside re d

tha t Ke e ne , R e nz i’ s Distric t Dire c t or, spoke for R e nz i. B e fore the jury re tire d to de l ibe rate , it wa s e sta blishe d that Ke e ne , not R e nz i , ha d first introduc e d the Sandlin prope rty . Age nt Odom told R e nz i only tha t m ak ing the phone c a ll wa s the ty pe of a c t that m i ght be re warde d. No a m ount wa s e ve r m e ntione d a n d no a ssura

nc e of
3pa

ym e nt wa s e ve r m a de . Furthe rm ore , the sta nda rd Adm onishm e nt form s sta te d only tha t a ny pa ym e nt would betaxa

ble ; the form s did not indic ate tha t Arie s would be pa id. It a

p p e ars tha

t in 2005, Arie s wa s a

re lative ly we a lthy pe rson. He te stifie d tha

t he wa s not m otiva

te d by any possiblepa

ym e nt by the Gove rnm e nt. In a ddition, during the

tria l, whe n que s tione d by R e nz i’ s c ounse l, Arie s sta te d tha t he ha d a grudge a ga inst R e nz i b e c a use the Sandlin de a l ha d ha rm e d him fina nc ia lly
and da m a ge d his profe ssiona l re puta tion. In a ddition, the

ide ntity of the first pe rson who m e ntione d the Sandlin prope rty wa s not a

c ritic a l e le m e nt of the tria l. R athe r, the linc hpin for thepublic
c orruption c ha

rge s wa s whe the r R e nz i ha d offe re d Arie s a “ fre e pa s s.” On this issue Arie s’ te stim ony ne ve r wave re d , a nd it wa s supporte d by

othe r witne sse s. In sum , R e nz i ha s not shown tha t the ne w e vide nc e is suffic ie nt to

“ unde rm ine c onfide nc e ” in the ve rdic t. W e arry , 136 S. C t . at

1006. 2. The de nia l of a

ne w tria l ba se d on a

n a sse rte d N

apueviola

tion is
re vie we d de novo. Unite d State

s v . Rodrigue

z , 766 F.3d 970, 980 (9th C ir. 2014). W e hav e he ld tha

t pursua nt to N apue , 360 U.S. 264, a

de fe nda nt is e ntitle d to re lie f whe n the re is fa lse te s tim ony tha t the prose c utor knows is false an d the fa lse te stim ony is m ate ria l. S

oto v . Ry an , 760 F.3d 947, 957–58 (9th C ir. 2014); Siv ak v . Hardison , 658 F.3d 898, 909 (9th C ir. 2011). R e nz i a sse rts tha t the prose c utor
4knowingly

m isle d the jury

a bout Arie s’ fina

nc ia l m otive by

te lling thejury that he ha d not re c e i ve d “ one thin dim e ” and by e lic i ting Arie s’ te s tim ony to tha t e ffe c t. R e nz i a lso a

rgue s tha t the prose c utor knowingly sponsore d fa lse te stim ony a bout the s ubsta nc e of Arie s’ m e e t i ng with Re nz i. Ne i the r argum e nt is pe rsua sive
. W e re je c te d R e nz i’ s se c ond a

rgum e nt in our prior opinion. 1 Re nzi , 769 F.3d
at 752. R e nz i ha s offe re d no ne w fa c ts or le g a l a rgum e nts tha

t c ha nge our m ind. Furthe r, the prose c utor’ s c om m e nt tha t Arie s ha d not re c e ive d “ one thin dim e ” wa s true . Arie s ha d not re c e ive d a ny pa ym e nt, a nd a ppa re ntly ha s still not re c e i ve d a

ny pa ym e nt. Ac c o rdingly , R e nz i’ s N apue c la im

fa i ls be c a

use the sta

te m e nt wa s not

1 W e rule d : R e nz i ha s fa ile d to provethe third prong of N a pue be c a use the re is not a “ re a s ona ble like l ihood” tha

t Arie s’ or Ke e ne ’ s sta

te m e nts a ffe c te d the jury ’ s judgm e nt. Se e Houston , 648 F.3d a t 814. First, de fe nse c ounse l e ffe c tive ly

atta c k e d the c re d ibility

of Arie s a

nd Ke e ne on c ross-e xam i nation. Id . (finding no re a s ona ble like lihood tha

t fa lse te stim ony a ffe c te d the jury

whe re “ [d] e fe nse c ounse l e ffe c tive ly atta c ke d [the witne ss’ s] c re dibility” ). Se c ond, whe the r or not Sa ndlin spoke to Arie s on April 14 or April 15 was of m argina l re le va nc e whe n c om

pa re d to R e nz i’ s prom ise s (a “ fre e pa ss” through the Natura l R e sourc e s C o m

m itte e ) at the April 15 m e e ting. Theprim ary disputeat tria l wa s not whe the r R e nz i pushe d Sandlin’ s tra c t on Arie s, but w hy . The jury

c ould re a sona

bly c onc lude that R e nz i, not Arie s, pushe d the tra c t at the m e e ting, e ve n though Arie s ha d he a rd a bout the tra c t from Sandlin theda

y prior. B e c a

use the sta

te m e nts we re not “ m at e ria l,” we c o n c lude tha t no N apueviola

t ion oc c urre d. Re nzi , 769 F.3d a

t 752. 5a c tua lly

fa lse , a pre re quisitefor re lie f unde r N apue . Se e Soto , 760 F.3d a t 957–58; Siv a k, 658 F.3d a

t 909. Howe ve r, e ve n if a c c urate te stim ony c ould be de live re d in
suc h a m isle a ding m anne r a s to giverise to a N apueviola

tion, se e Tow e ry

v . Sc hriro , 641 F.3d 300, 309 (9th C ir. 2010), this is not suc h a c a se . De spite R e nz i ’ s a sse rtions in his m

otion for a

ne w tria l, the re is nothing to sugge st tha t the prose c utor knowingly

sought to c re ate a

fa lse im pre ssion, or tha

t the im pre ssion that Arie s m i g ht be pa i d wa s m ate ria l to theprose c ution. The distric t c ourt’ s de nia ls of the m otions for ne w tria ls by R e nz i a nd Sandlin a re AFFIRM E D
.

6