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. ALLEN R

AYM OND JOHNSON, AKA Se a l B , De fe nda

nt - Appe lla

nt. No. 13-56635

D.C . Nos. 8:10-c v-01641-JVS

8:05-c r-00036-JVS-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 Jam e s V. Se lna , Distric t

Judge , Pre siding A rgue d a nd Subm itte d De c e m

be r 10, 2014 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : SILVER

M A N, B EA, a

nd C HR ISTEN, C i rc uit Judge s. In 2005, Alle n

Johnson ple a de d guilty to six c ounts of hone st se rvic e s wire fraud, in viola

tion of 18 U.S.C . §§ 1343 a nd 1346, a

nd c onspira c y to la

unde r the 

# FIL ED
D EC 29 2014 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.proc e e ds of the hone st se rvic e s wire fra ud, in viola

tion of 18 U.S.C . § 1956(h). 1 He a ppe a le d, but only

a s to the distric t c ourt’ s re stitution orde r. Se eUnite d State

s
v . J ohnson , 338 F. App’ x 561, 562 (9th C ir. 2009) (a ffirm ing re stitution orde r). In 2010, Johnson file d a

m o tion to va c ate his se nte nc e unde r 28 U.S.C . § 2255,
arguing tha

t the c onduc t to whic h he ple a de d guilty no longe r c onstitute s hone st
se rvic e s fra

ud ba se d on theSupre m e C ourt’ s de c ision in S k illing v . Unite d State

s , 561 U.S. 358 (2010). The distric t c ourt de te rm ine d tha t Johnson’ s Sk

illing c la im
wa s proc e dura lly

de fa ulte d an d de nie d the m otion. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291 a

nd 2253, a

nd we a ffirm
. Johnson m a inta ins tha

t re solution of this a

ppe a l turns on whe the r he is

“ a c tua lly innoc e nt ” of hone st se rvic e s wire fra u d. Se eBousle

y v . Unite d State

s , 523 U.S. 614, 622 (1998) (“ Whe re a de fe n da nt ha s proc e dura lly

de fa ulte d a c la im by fa iling to raise it on dire c t re vie w, the c la im m ay be ra ise d in ha

be a s only if the

1 The pa

rtie s a re fam ilia r with thefa c t s of the c onvic tion, so wewill not re c o unt the m

he re . 2de fe nda

nt c an first de m onstra

te e ithe r c a

u se and a c tua l pre

judic e , or tha

t he is
a c tua lly innoc e nt.” (c i tations a

nd inte rna l quota

tion m arks om itte d)). 2 In Sk illing , the Supre m e C ourt limite d the sc ope of the hone st se rvic e s fra ud sta tute , 18 U.S.C . § 1346, to “ bribe ry an d kic k ba c k sc he m e s.” 561 U.S. a t 404–09. The re is no que stion tha

t Johnson ple a de d guilty

to de priving a

le nde r of its right to hone st se rvic e s by

pa rtic ipating in a

kic k ba c k sc he m e . None the le ss, Johnson
c onte nds tha

t he did not c om

m i t hone st se rvic e s fra

ud be c a use he pa id, a s oppose d to re c e ive d, the kic kba c ks. B ut nothing in Sk illing sugge sts theSupre m e C ourt inte nde d to dra

w a distinc tion be twe e n a

fiduc ia ry who de prive s a

vic tim of the right to hone st se rvic e s by re c e iving a

bribe or kic kba c k a

nd a fiduc ia ry who doe s the s am e by

pa y ing a bribe o r kic kba c k
. 3 Johnson points to a

se nte nc e in Sk

illing whe re the Supre m e C ourt de sc ribe d the c ore hone st se rvic e s fra u d offe nse a s involving “ fraudule nt sc he m e s to deprive

2 In his brie fing, Johnson a rgue d tha t his Sk illing c la im is not subje c t to the p roc e dura l de fa

ult ba r be c a use it im p lic ate s the distric t c o urt’ s subje c t m atte r jurisdic tion. B ut e ve n if Johnson were c orre c t tha t a c la im tha t a n indic tm e nt fa ils to c h arge a

va lid fe de ra l offe nse is jurisdic tiona l, in this c a se we hav e jurisdic tion and Johnson is not e

ntitle d to re lie f be c a

use the indic tm e nt sta

te s a n d Johnson ple a de d guilty to a

va lid hone st se rvic e s fra

ud offe nse . 3 Also, we obse rve tha t Johnson’ s c onduc t m ay be c ha ra c te riz e d a s re c e iving a

bribe in the form

of re fe rra ls, pa

rtic ula rly sinc e the ne t re sult of the sc he m e wa s tha

t Johnson re c e ive d a

portion of the

c l osing fe e s without ac tua lly c onduc ting thec losings. 3anothe r of hone s t se rvic e s through bribe s or kic kba c ks supplie d by a third pa rty who ha d not be e n de c e ive d
. ” Id. at 404. Heove rlooks tha t e l se whe re the C ourt de sc ribe d the c ore offe nse m uc h m ore broa dly , to inc lude “ offe n de rs who, in viola tion of a fiduc i ary duty , partic ipate d in b ribe ry or kic kba c k sc he m e s.” Id. at 407 (e m pha sis a d d e d); se e also id. at 413 (“ A c rim ina l de fe nda nt who partic ipate d in a bribe ry

or kic kba c k sc he m e , in short, c annot te na bly c o m pla in a bout prose c ution under § 1346 on vague ne ss grounds.” (e m pha s is a dde d)). B e c a

use Johnson ple a d e d guilty

to pa rtic ipat ing in a

kic k ba c k sc he m e in viola

tion of his fiduc ia ry duty , he is not a c tua lly

innoc e nt of hone st se rvic e s fra ud. AFFIRM E D.

4