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. ALFRE D T. SAPSE, De fe nda

nt - Appe lla

nt. No. 13-10592

D.C . No. 2:10-c r-00370-KJDGW F-1
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ne v a da Ke nt J. Da

wson, Se nior Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d

Nove m b e r 17, 2015 ** San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : NOONAN, W

ARD LAW , a

nd PAEZ, C irc uit Judge s. Alfre d T. Sa

p se a ppe a ls his c onvic tion for m ultiplec ounts of m a il a

nd wire fraud a nd one c ount of c onspira c y to c om m i t m a il a nd wire fra

ud. W e a ffirm
. 

# FIL ED JAN 07 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. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).In e sta blishing Appe lla

nt’ s fra udule nt inte nt, the gove rnm e nt introduc e d
e vide nc e tha

t he viola te d va rious U.S. Food a

n d Drug Adm inistra

tion (FDA)
re gula tions. Thedistric t c o urt prohibite d the de fe nse from

introduc ing e vide nc e re late d to the FDA’ s politic s to re but thee vide nc e of the re gula tions viola

tions. Appe l la nt a rgue s tha t this de c ision wa s in e rror and viola te d his right to pre se nt a de fe nse . Appe lla nt’ s c o-de fe n da

nt ra ise d this issue

at tria l ; the re fore we re vie w for
a buse o f disc re tion. Unite d State s v . Orm Hie ng , 679 F.3d 1131, 1141 (9th C ir. 2012); U nite d State

s v . K omisaruk , 885 F.2d 490, 492 (9th C ir. 1989). Appe lla nt fa ile d to e sta

blish thec o nne c tion be twe e n the FDA’ s politic s a

nd the issue s in the
c a se . The re fore , the distric t c ourt prope rly e x c l ude d this e vide nc e a s be ing irre le va nt. Se eUnite d State

s v . Valle jo , 237 F.3d 1008, 1015-17 (9th C ir. 2001). Appe lla nt a lso a rgue s tha t the distric t c ourt im

pe rm i ssibly

pe rm itte d the gove rnm e nt to shift the

burde n of proof to him

to de m onstra

te tha t he did not
m isre pre se nt his a c a de m ic c re de ntia ls. Appe l la nt re lie d on the se c re de ntia ls a s pa rt of his de fe nse but did not provide doc um e ntat ion c orroborating the m in re sponse to
a gove rnm e nt subpoe na . This c ourt re vie ws de novo whe the r a distric t c o urt shifte d the b urde n of proof to thede fe nda nt. Unite d State

s v . Brobst , 558 F.3d 982, 998 (9th C ir. 2009). Thegove rnm e nt did not a rgue tha t Appe lla nt’ s fa ilure to provide 2doc um e ntation c onfirm ing his c re de ntia ls re q uire d a guilty ve rdic t, a nd the distric t c ourt instruc te d the jury

tha t Appe lla nt did “not ha

ve to prove his innoc e nc e or introduc e any

e vide nc e at a ll.” The re fore , the tria l c ourt did not im pe rm issibly pe rm it the gove rnm e nt to shift the burde n of proof. S

e e Unite d State s v . Mare s , 940 F.2d 455, 461 (9th C ir. 1991). Appe lla nt furthe r c la i m s tha

t the distric t c ourt viola

te d his Fifth Ame ndm e nt right a ga inst se lf-inc rim inat ion by a llowing the gove rnm e nt to ne gative ly c om m e nt on his fa ilure to providedoc um e ntation c onfirm ing his a c a de m ic c re de ntia ls in
re sponse to the gove rnm e nt subpoe na . W e re v ie w whe the r the gove rnm e nt im prope rly c om m e nte d on a

de fe nda nt’ s Fifth Am e ndm e nt right to be fre e of
se lf-inc rim ination denovo. Unite d State s v . Bushyhe ad , 270 F.3d 905, 911 (9th C ir. 2001). Appe lla

nt did not invoke

his Fifth Am e ndm e nt right a t the tim e the subpoe na wa s se rve d, the re by

wa iving his c l a im

tha t the gove rnm e nt’ s c om m e nta ry viola te d tha t right. Se e Unite d State

s v . Unruh , 855 F.2d 1363, 1374 (9th C ir. 1987). Fina lly , Appe lla

nt argue s tha

t the distric t c ourt e rre d in a d justing his
se nte nc e for a

buse of a position of trust a

nd for obstruc tion of justic e . Appe lla nt did not obje c t to the se upwa rd a djustm e nts a

t the tim e of se nte nc ing; the re fore we re vie w the distric t c o urt’ s de c ision for plain e rror. Unite d State s v . Bonilla-Guizar, 3729 F.3d 1179, 1187 (9th C ir. 2013). Pla in e rror is e rror that is “ so c le ar-c ut [a nd] so obvious [tha

t] a c om pe t e nt distric t judge should bea ble to a void it without [the ] be ne fit of obje c tion.” U

nite d State

s v . Gonzale

z-Aparic io , 663 F.3d 419, 428 (9th C ir. 2011). The a buse of a position of trust e nha nc e m e nt a

pplie s whe re a

de fe nda nt

“ a b use d a position of public

or priva te trust . . . in a

m anne r that signific antly fa c i lita t e d the c om

m ission . . . of the

offe nse .” U.S.S.G. § 3B 1.3. The re c ord
a de quate ly

supports the

distric t c ourt’ s de te rm ination tha t Appe lla nt prom ote d his ba c kground a s a

“ re pute d phy sic ia

n a nd a s a re se arc h e r” in c o m

m itting fra

u d; the re fore the distric t c ourt did not pla inly e rr in a pply ing this adjustm e nt. The obstruc tion of justic e e nha nc e m e nt a

pplie s whe re a

de fe nda nt c om m itte d pe rjury

or provide d m ate ria lly

fa lse sta te m e nts to a

la w e nforc e m e nt offic e r during thec ourse of a n inve stiga

tion. U.S.S.G. § 3C 1.1 c m ts. 4(B ), (G). The
re c o rd a de quat e ly

supports the

distric t c ourt’ s finding tha t Appe lla nt pe rjure d him se lf by te stify i ng fa lse ly a bout his e duc ationa l ba c k ground a nd tha t he m a de fa lse sta te m e nts to la

we n forc e m e nt offic ia ls who we re inve stiga ting him . Thus, the d istric t c o urt did not c om m i t pla in e rror in a

pply ing a se nte nc ing a djustm e nt for
an obstruc tion of justic e . AFFIRM E D. 4