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. M IC HAEL LESLIE SNYDER , De fe nda

nt - Appe lla

nt. No. 14-50190

D.C . No. 2:12-c r-01062-GAF-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 Gary A. Fe e ss, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d M a

rc h 9, 2016 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : PREGER SON, PAEZ, a nd NGUYEN, C irc u i t Judge s. M ic ha e l Sny de r a

ppe a ls his c onvic tion a

nd se nte nc e for e ight c ounts of the ft of gove rnm e nt prope rty

in viola tion of 18 U.S.C
. § 641, a nd one c ount of m aking
and using a

fa lse sta te m e nt in viola

tion of 18 U.S.C . § 1001(a )(3). W e hav e jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C
. § 1291, a nd we a ffirm
. 

# FIL ED AUG 02 2016 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 . 36-3.1. W e re vie w for an a buse of disc re t ion the distric t c ourt’ s dism issa l of a n indic tm e nt for pre -indic tm e nt de la y , a n d we re v ie w a

finding of Fifth Ame n dm e nt pre j udic e for c le a

r e rror. Unite d State

s v . Gre gory , 322 F.3d 1157, 1161 (9th C ir. 2003); s e e also Unite d State s v . C orona-Ve rbe ra , 509 F.3d 1105, 1112 (9th C ir. 2007). Sny de r argue s tha

t during thefive -y e ar pe riod be twe e n whe n the gove rnm e nt be c am e aware of his fra ud a n d whe n it file d the indic tm e n t, Sny de r’ s
m othe r pa sse d a

w a y . Sny d e r c onte nds tha

t from 2007 to 2008, whe

n the a lle ge d the fts oc c urre d, he live d with his mothe r, who would ha ve te stifie d if he ha d be e n indic te d e arlie r. At tha

t tim e , Sny de r’ s ne phe w a lso live d in thea pa rtm e nt a nd wa s the d e signa

te d c a re take r for Sny de r’ s m o the r. Sny de r’ s ne phe w , a de fe nse witne ss, te stifie d tha

t Sny de r prim arily

live d with his wife

at tha t tim e , in a

se pa rate
re side nc e . Sny de r ha s not de m o nstra te d tha t the a bse nc e of his m othe r’ s te stim ony rise s to the le v e l of Fifth Am e ndm e nt pre judic e . Although he

posits tha

t his m othe r would ha ve offe re d c om

p e lling te stim ony

on his be ha lf, “ whe n a

de fe nda nt fa ils to
m ake a spe c ific showing a s to wha t a de c e a se d witne ss would ha ve sa id, a ny argum e nt of pre

j udic e is pure c onje c ture .” C orona-Ve rbe ra , 509 F.3d a t 1113. Sny de r a lso fa ile d to de m onstra te tha t the te s tim ony of his m othe r, who 2purporte dly

suffe re d from the e arly

sta ge s of de m e ntia

prior to he r de ath in 2009,
wa s distinc t from

and m ore probative tha

n his nephe w’ s te stim ony . B e c a use Sny de r’ s a lle gat ions of pre judic e are spe c ulative , we ne e d not e xam i ne the gove rnm e nt’ s re a sons for the de la y in filing. Se e Unite d

State s v . Bark e n , 412 F.3d 1131, 1134 (9th C ir. 2005) (“ The se c o nd pa rt of the te st a

pplie s only

if the de fe nda n t ha s de m onstra

te d a c t ua l pre judic e .” ). The distric t c ourt did not err in de ny ing Sny de r’ s m otion to dism iss theindic t

m e nt for pre -indic tm e n t de la y . 2. Unde r Batson v . K

e ntuc k y , 476 U.S. 79 (1986), a

nd He rnande

z v . N e w York , 500 U.S. 352 (1991) (plura lity opinion), a de fe nda

nt m ay c ha l le nge the prose c ution’ s disc rim inatory use of pe re m

ptory c ha lle nge s. W

he n a de fe nda nt fa ils to obje c t to theprose c ution’ s e xpla nation for its pere m

ptory strike s , we re vie w for pla in e rror. Unite d State s v . C ontre ras-C

ontre ras , 83 F.3d 1103, 1105 (9th C ir. 1996). Sny de r doe s not c h a lle n ge the c ourt’ s Batson findings. Inste a d, he
argue s tha

t the distric t c ourt e rre d whe n it rule d on Sny d e r’ s Batson c ha lle n ge but fa ile d to solic it the prose c ut ion’ s e xpla nation for its pere m

ptory strike s a ga inst two othe r Latino jurors. During jury

se l e c tion, Sny de r invoke d Batson , a sse rting tha t the prose c ution ha d struc k a “ third La

tino” juror. The distric t c o urt a ssum e d without de c iding tha t Sny de r ha d m a de a prim a fa c ie showing tha

t the prose c ution’ s pe re m ptory strike 3im

prope rly disc rim inate d on the ba sis of e thnic ity , and the c ourt a ske d the prose c ution to provide

an e xpla nat ion. The prose c utor provide d a ra c e -ne utra l
e xpla nation, a nd she note d tha

t she did not know the prospe c t ive juror’ s ra c e or e thnic ity on the ba sis of his na

m e or a ppe aranc e . B oth the distric t c ourt a nd Sny de r’ s c ounse l a gre e d tha t the y a lso c ould not identify

the juror’ s e t

hnic ity . The distric t c o urt a ssum e d for the purpose s of the m o tion tha t the prospe c t ive juror wa s Latino a nd found tha

t the re wa s insuffic ie nt e v i de nc e to support a Batson
c ha lle nge . Sny de r’ s c ounse l, howe v e r, did not notify the distric t c o urt tha t she sought to have the c ourt que stion theprose c utor re ga rding the strike s a g a i nst the two prior, prospe c tive Latino jurors. Nor did she obje c t to the c ourt’ s finding tha t Sny de r ha d not m e t his burde n unde r Batson . Unde r the s e c irc um sta nc e s, we fa il to se e any e rror, pla in or othe rwise , in the distric t c ourt’ s fa ilure to c o nduc t a sua sponte Batson ana ly sis of thee xc lusion of the prior two La

tino jurors. 3. W e re vie w for an a buse of disc re t ion the c ourt’ s form ulation of jury instruc tions. Unite d

State s v . Hofus , 598 F.3d 1171, 1174 (9th C i r. 2010). W e re vie w those instruc tions in c onte xt a nd a s a whole to de te rm ine whe t he r the y are
m isle a ding or ina d e quate to guidethe jury ’ s de libe ra tions. Unite d State s v . Garc ia-Riv e ra , 353 F.3d 788, 792 (9th C ir. 2003). W e re vie w de novo whe the r the 4instruc tions omit or m issta te the e le m e nts of a

sta tutory c rim e . Hofus , 598 F.3d a t 1174. Whe n the de fe nda

nt fa ils to obje c t to a

n instruc tion be fore the distric t c ourt,
we re vie wfor pla i n e rror. Unite d State s v . Bac k man , 817 F.3d 662, 665 (9th C ir. 2016). Sny de r’ s c ha lle nge fa ils to e s ta blish tha t the distric t c ourt e rre d. In Unite d State s v . C arrie r , we he ld tha

t to e sta blish a willful, fa l se sta te m e nt in viola

tion of 18 U.S.C . § 1001, thegove rnm e nt m ust prove be y ond a
re a s ona ble doubt tha

t the de fe nda

nt a c te d “ de libe ra te ly

and with knowle dge .” 654 F.2d 559, 561 (9th C ir. 1981). At the tim e of Sny de r’ s tria l, C

a rrie r’s inte rpre tation of se c tion 1001’ s inte nt re quire m e n t wa s binding pre c e de nt in this
c irc uit, a nd the distric t c ourt so instruc te d the jury . W e have uphe ld c o nvic tions whe n the distric t

c ourt’ s inte nt jury

instruc tion use d the la

ngua ge provide d in C arrie r . Unite d State

s v . Tatoy an , 474 F.3d 1174, 1182 (9th C ir. 2007). Sny de r argue s tha

t inte rve ning c a se la

w c a lls into que stion C

arrie r’s de finition of “

willfulne ss.” He c onte nds tha t Bry an v . Unite d State

s a brogate d C arrie r be c a use Bry an he ld tha

t “ a willful a c t

is one unde rtake n with a

ba d purpose ” with re spe c t to theFire arm s Owne rs’ Prote c t ion Ac t, 18 U.S.C . § 922(a )(1)(A). 524 U.S. 184, 191–95 (1998) (inte rna l quota

t ion m arks om itte d). Id. He a dditiona lly

sugge sts tha

t the C ourt’ s non-binding, non-pre c e de ntia l , one line re m and in Unite d State s v . Ajok u , 134 S. C t. 1872 (2014) (va c ating a 5c onvic tion for viola tion of 18 U.S.C . § 1035), unde rm i ne s our c o ntinue d re lia nc e on C a rrie r an d Tatoy an . W e ne e d not re solve this que stion be c a use e ve n if the instruc tion wa s e rrone ous, Sny de r ha s fa ile d to de m onstra te that the a lle ge d

e rror a ffe c te d his substa ntia l rights. To dem onstra te tha t a n e rror a ffe c te d Sny de r’ s substa ntia l rights, hem

ust de m onstra

t e tha t the e rror wa s pre

judic ia l—

that is, tha t the re is “ a re a s ona ble proba bility tha t, but for [thee rror c la im e d ] , the re sult of theproc e e ding would ha ve be e n diffe re nt.” Unite d State s v . Alghazouli , 517 F.3d 1179, 1190 (9th C ir. 2008) (a lte ra tion in origina l). Sny de r ha s fa ile d to do so. C onstruing the

tria l e vide nc e in the light m ost fa vora ble to the ve rdic t, a
re a s ona ble juror c ould ha

ve found tha

t Sny d e r knowingly

and willfully m a de a fa lse sta te m e nt re g a

rding his m arita l sta

tus with the

knowle dge tha

t his sta te m e nt
wa s fa lse and his c onduc t unla wful. Sny de r’ s re de te rm ination a pplic ation re quire d the a pplic an t to a ffirm : “ I unde rsta nd tha t a ny one who knowingly

lie s or
m isre pre se nts the truth . . . is c om m itting a c rim e whic h

c an be punishe d

unde r Fe de ra l la w, State la

w, or both. Every thing on this doc um e nt is thetruth a s be st I know it.”M arc Ham

m ond, a Soc ia l Se c urity

Adm inistra

tion c la im s re pre se ntative
and ope ra tions supervisor, te stifie d tha t he re vie we d

Sny de r’ s a

pplic ation with Sny de r at the tim e tha

t Sny de r c om

ple te d and subm itte d it. As pa

rt of tha t proc e ss, 6Ham

m ond fla gge d for Sny de r the form ’ s a dvisory re ga rding truthful sta

te m e nts,
and he instruc te d Sny de r to re a d the a dvisory prior to signing the re de te rm ination
a pplic ation. Additiona

lly , we e k s prior to subm

itting his re de te rm ination
a pplic ation, Sny d e r ha d a ske d Soc ia l Se c urity sta ff, “ on be h a lf of a

frie n d,” what the i m p a c t of m a

rry ing a n ine ligiblespouse would ha ve on a n SSI-re c ipie nt’ s e ligibility . M ore ove r, Sny de r him se lf a dm i tte d tha t he kne w he “ should ha

ve re porte d [his] m arria g e ” to the Soc ia l Se c urity Adm inistra

tion but did not be c a

use his wife wa s “ m aking a

lot of m one y ” and he wa s “ a fra i d [his] SSI be ne fits would be re duc e d[.] ” On this re c ord, it is not re a sona bly proba ble tha t a m odifie d jury instruc tion would ha

v e produc e d a

diffe re nt re sult on C o unt 9. 4. Fina lly , Sny d e r c onte nds tha t the distric t

c o urt e rre d in re

je c t ing his propose d jury i nstruc tion de fining “ house h old.” “ A c ourt c o m m its re v e rsible e rror whe n it fa ils to instruc t the jury ” on a de fe n se the o ry

if tha t the ory is supporte d by la w a nd if “ the re is e v ide nc e upon whic h the jury c ould ra tiona lly susta in the de fe nse .” Unite d State

s v . Daane , 475 F.3d 1114, 1119 (9th C ir. 2007) (first quota t ion); Unite d State

s v . Boulw are , 558 F.3d 971, 974 (9th C ir. 2009) (se c ond quota t ion)
. W e do not re quire the distric t c ourt to c h arge the jury on a the ory of de fe nse for whic h the re i s no e v ide ntia ry support. Sny de r’ s de fe nse wa s tha t he m a inta ine d a

house hold with his m

othe r, not 7his wife , at the tim e of the a l le ge d the fts be c a use his m othe r’ s a

pa rtm e n t is whe re he c o ntribute d to thec o st of house hold e xp e nse s. SSI re gula tions re quire a spouse ’ s inc om e be “ d e e m e d ” to the c la im ant, whic h m ay a ffe c t the c la im ant’ s e ligibility , a s we ll a s the am ount of thec la im ant’ s be ne fits a ward. Se e 20 C .F.R
. §§ 416.1160, 416.1163. B e c a u se the “ d e e m ing” re gula tions do not de fine

“ house h old,” Sny de r re que ste d the c ourt look to the de finitions from

re gula tions
re ga rding in-kind or third-pa

rty support—

whic h a ffe c t the amount

of a n
award— whe n c ha rging the jury

on Sny de r’ s “ house hold” de fe nse . Se e 20 C .F.R
. §§ 416.1131–416.1133. Dra w ing on 20 C .F.R . § 416.1132(a ), the c ourt de fine d a house h old a s “ a

pe rsona l pla c e of re side nc e .” Sny de r re que s te d a m ore e la borate instruc tion, a

rguing tha

t his household wa s a lso de fine d by whe re he pa id a sha

re of house hold a

nd ope ra ting e xp e nse s. Se e id. § 416.1132(c )(4). The in-kind support re gula

tions de fine d house hold e xpe nse s a s “ m onthly e xpe n diture s for food,
re nt, m ortga g e , prope rty

taxe s, he ating fue l, ga s, e le c tric ity , wate r, se we ra ge , a nd ga rba g e c olle c tion se rvic e ” ave ra ge d ove r the pre vious twe lve m onths. Id. § 416.1133. Aside from

the sta te m e nts m a de on Sny de r’ s re d e te rm ination a pplic ation, the re wa s no othe r e vide nc e tha t he pa id re nt a

t e ithe r re side n c e . Sny de r’ s e x-wife pa id a ll house hold e xpe nse s at he r house , a nd Sny de r c onte n de d tha

t he c ontribute d 8to his m o the r’ s food c o sts. Sny de r provide d no e vide nc e tha

t he c ontribute d to his
m othe r’ s non-food household e xpe nse s. Sny de r a lso wa s not liste d a s a te n ant on the l e a s e for his m othe r’ s a pa rtm e n t or for his wife ’ s house from De c e m b e r 2007 through De c e m

be r 2008, a

nd he did not de m onstra

te tha t he wa s lia

b le for re nt a

t
e ithe r re side nc e . Noting tha

t Sny de r ha d not provide d e vide nc e tha t he wa s lia

ble to a ny la ndlord for a

portion of e i the r his m othe r or his wife ’ s re nt, the c o urt he ld tha t the
e xte nde d de finitions in se c tions 416.1132(c ) and 416.1133 were ina p plic a ble . In light of the

de arth of e v i de nc e offe re d in support of Snyde r’ s house hold de fe nse , the d istric t c o urt did not err in de c lining to instruct the jury on a supe rfluous de finition. M o re ove r, the de finition of “ h ouse hold,” a s provide d

in the c ourt’ s instruc tion num

be r 13, wa s suffic ie nt for Sny de r to a rgue his “ house h old” de fe nse . AFFIRM E D.

9