T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on a nd i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by 9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l y c onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l a r g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2).

T he H onor abl e N a nc y G e r tne r , U ni t e d S t a t e s D i s tr i c tJ udge f orthe ** * D i s tr i c tof

M a s s a c hus e tt s , s i tt i ng by de s i gna t i on.

NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T UN I T E D S T AT E S OF AME R I C A, P l ai nt i ff

- A pp el l ee , v. XI C HA I DE Z , AK A S e a l A, AK A X i Z ha ng, A K A S unny Z ha ng, D e f

e n d a n t - A p p e lla n t. N o. 09- 50137 D . C . N o. 2: 07 -c r- 00 21 5-S V W -1 ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e C e n tr a l D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia S t e phe n V . W i l s on, D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d A pr i l 6, 2010 ** P a s a d e n a , C a lif

o rn ia Be f o r e : D . W . N ELSO N a n d REI N H A RD T, Ci r c u i tJ u d g e s , a n d G ERTN ER, *** D i stri ctJudg e. 

# FI LED APR09 2 010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS2

X i C hai dez app ea l s herconv i ct i on on on e c ou ntof Im pai rm entof In R em J u r is d ic tio n in v io la tio n o f 1 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 3 2 ( b ) a n d o n e c o u n t o f C o n s p ir a c y to I mp a i rI n Re m J u r i s d i c t i o n i n v i o l a t i o n o f 1 8 U . S. C. § 3 7 1 . W e a f f i r m. F i rs t , w e hol d thatC hai dez c anno tchal l enge the suff i ci ency of the evi dence unde r l y i ng he rc onvi c t i ons . C ha i de z w a i ve d he rr i ghtt o s e e k appe l l a t e r e vi e w of the suff i ci ency of the evi dence by fa i l i ng t o m ov e f or a j ud gm entof ac qu i tt al b e f o r e h e rc a s e w a s s u b m itte d to th e ju ry . U ni t e d Stat e s v . T

is or , 96 F . 3d 370, 379 (9th C i r. 19 96 ). N ext , w e r ej ec tC hai dez’ ar gu m entthatthe G ov ernm entcom m i tt ed prosec ut ori al m i sc on du ctby st at i ng du ri ng i t s c l osi ng ar gu m entthatC hai dez s t i pul a t e d t o a n e l e m e ntof the c ha r ge d of

f e ns e s . “ W e r e vi e w c l a i m s of p r o s e c u to r ia l m is c o n d u c t f o rp la in e rr o rw h e n th e d e f e n d a n t f a ils to o b je c t a t tr ia l. W e f i nd pl a i n e rr oronl y w he n the r e i s : 1) e rr or ; 2) tha tw a s c l e a rorobvi ous ; 3) th ataffected su b st an t i al ri g h t s; an d 4 ) th atseri o u sl y affected the fairness, i n t eg ri ty, or pu bl i c r eput at i on of the j ud i ci al proceedi ng s. ” U ni t e d Stat e s v . W

as hi ngton , 462 F .3 d 1 1 2 4 , 1 1 3 6 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ) ( in te rn a l c ita tio n s o m itte d ) . C h a id e z ’ c o u n s e l a g r e e d in o p e n c o u r t o n th e r e c o r d th a t th e d e f e n s e w o u ld “n o t . . . te ll th e ju ry th a t th e g o v e rn m e n t h a [ d n ’t] p r o v e n b e y o n d a r e a s o n ab le doubttha tthe r e w a s n’ tpe r m i s s i on t o s e l l . ” T he di s tr i c tc our ta nd the G ove rnm e nt3

m ade c l ea r on the re cord thatthey bel i eved thi s s t at em entw as “ a f ac tual st i pu l at i on ” thatC hai dez never r ec ei ved p erm i ss i on t o sel l . N othi ng i n the re cord sugg es t s t o u s thatthi s bel i ef w as i n err or. C hai dez di d n otobj ec tw hen t he court st at ed on the re cord thata s t i pu l at i on had b ee n m ade, w hen t he G ov ernm entas ked fo r an d recei v ed p erm i ssi o n t o m en t i o n th e st i p u l at i o n d u ri n g cl o si n g arg u m en t s, no r w hen t he G ov ernm entst at ed du ri ng i t s c l osi ng ar gu m entthatC hai dez m ade a st i pu l at i on . T he m ostre as on abl e e xp l anat i on for C hai dez’ si l ence i s thatC hai dez’ c o u n s e l d id in f

a c t s tip u la te th a t s h e la c k e d p e r m is s io n to tr a n s f e rth e p r o p e r ty . E ve n i f C ha i de z di d noti nt e nd t o s t i pul a t e thi s poi nt , he ri nt e ntw a s not“ c l e a ror ob vi ou s” and t he G ov ernm entand t he court ’ s m utual fa i l ure t o d i sc ern h er u n d is c lo s e d in te n t d id n o t “s e r io u s ly a f f e c t[ ] th e f

a irn e s s , in te g r ity , o rp u b lic re pu t at i on of the j ud i ci al proceedi ng s. ” W as hi ngton , 4 6 2 F .3 d a t 1 1 3 6 . A c c or di ngl y , w e hol d tha tthe G ove rnm e ntdi d notc om m i tpl a i n e rr ori n a s s e r t i ng d u r in g its c lo s in g a r g u m e n t th a t C h a id e z s tip u la te d th a t s h e la c k e d c o u r t a u th o r ity t o tra nsfe r the prop erty a ti ss ue. AF F I RME D.