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.

Th e H o n o r ab l e M a r k L. W o l f , Se n i o rD i s tr i c tJ u d g e f o rth e U . S. ** D i s tr i c tC our tf

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. T H A N H V IE T C A O , A K A Je re m y C ao D e f

e n d a n t - A p p e lla n t. N o. 11- 50200 D . C . N o. 3: 10 -c r- 02 21 7-L A B -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 S o u th e rn D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia L a rry A . B urns , D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng A r gue d a nd S ubm i tt e d M a r c h 8, 2013 P a s a d e n a , C a lif

o rn ia B ef ore: W A R D L A W and G O U L D , C i rc ui tJudg es , and W O L F , S eni or D i stri ct Judg e. ** 

# FI LED MA Y31 2 013 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS2

T ha nh V i e t“ J e r e m y ” C a o ( “ C a o” ) appe a l s hi s c onvi c t i on on one c ountof c ons pi r a c y t o c om m i tw i r e f r a ud, a nd thr e e c ount s of w i r e f r a ud a nd a i di ng a nd ab ett i n g w i re frau d , i n v i o l at i o n o f 1 8 U . S . C . § § 2 , 1 3 4 1 , 1 3 4 3 , an d 1 3 4 9 . H e al so appe a l s hi s s e nt e nc e of

360 m onths i n c us t ody . W e ha ve j ur i s di c t i on unde r28 U . S . C . § 1 29 1. W e a ff

i rm C ao’ s c on vi ct i on and sent ence . T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t d id n o t ab u s e its d is c r e tio n b y d e n y in g C a o ’s m o tio n to re cuse al l of the j ud ges of the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rtfor the S ou thern D i stri ct o f C al i fo rn i a. W h ere a l i t i g an tth reat en s a j u d g e, “ ‘ p erh ap s . . . th e m o st i m por t a nt ’ ” a s pe c tof

the r e c us a l i nqui ry unde r28 U . S . C . § 455( a ) i s “ the perc ei ved p urpo se of the threa t . ” U n ite d S ta te s v . S

p a n g le , 6 2 6 F .3 d 4 8 8 , 4 9 6 ( 9 th C i r . 2010) ( quot i ng U

ni te d State s v . H

ol land , 51 9 F . 3d 90 9, 91 5 (9th C i r. 20 08 )) . D is q u a lif

ic a tio n is n o t n e c e s s a ry o rap p r o p r ia te w h e r e th e p u rp o s e o f th e th r e a t is t o “ forc e r ec usal and m ani pu l at e the j ud i ci al sy st em , ” H ol land , 519 F . 3d a t915, ra ther than “ ac tual m al i ce , ” S p a n g le , 626 F . 3d a t496. I n thi s c a s e , a f t e rthe i nv es t i gat i on i nt o C ao’ s a ct i vi t i es had b egun , bu tbefore he w as i nd i ct ed, C ao threa t ened t o fi l e, and fi l ed, l i ens a gai nsttw o j ud ges, no ti ncl ud i ng the di stri ct j ud ge w ho pres i ded i n h i s c as e, and agai nstse vera l prosec ut ors a nd other go vernm entem pl oyee s a s w el l . T he l i ens thatC ao fi l ed w er e r ea sonabl y r egar ded a s e f f o r ts to p r o m p t r e c u s a l a n d m a n ip u la te th e ju d ic ia l s y s te m . Se e H ol land , 5193

F . 3d a t915–17 . M o reo v er, th e p resi d i n g d i stri ctj u d g e l earn ed ab o u tth e l i en s fi l ed ag ai n st tw o of hi s c ol l e a gue s i n the c our s e of the pr os e c ut i on of

C a o. W he r e , a s he r e , the in f o r m a tio n th a t a lle g e d ly r e q u ir e s d is q u a lif ic a tio n w a s r e c e iv e d b y th e ju d g e in the c our s e of

the pr oc e e di ngs a ti s s ue , di s qua l i f i c a t i on i s appr opr i a t e onl y i f the j ud ge m ani fe st s opi ni on s that“ di spl ay a dee p-se at ed fa vo ri t i sm or ant agon i sm that w ou l d m ake f

ai r j ud gm enti m po ss i bl e. ” L i tek y v . U ni ted Stat es , 510 U . S . 540, 555 (199 4). T hi s i s notsuch a c as e. T he di s tr i c tc our ta l s o di d notabus e i t s di s c r e t i on by de ny i ng C a o’ s m ot i on t o r e c us e the e nt i r e U ni t e d S t a t e s A tt orne y ’ s O f f i c e f orthe S outhe rn D i s tr i c tof C al i forni a. “ D i stri ctj ud ges have ‘ subst ant i al l at i tud e’ i n d ec i di ng w hether c ou nsel m u s t b e d is q u a lif

ie d ” in a c r im in a l c a s e . U ni te d State s v . Fr ega , 179 F . 3d 793, 799 ( 9th C i r . 1999) ( quot i ng U ni ted Stat es v. St i tes , 56 F . 3d 10 20 , 10 24 (9th C i r. 19 95 )) . D i squal i fi ca t i on of a s i ng l e prose cut or has bee n o rder ed i n l i m i t ed c ir c u m s ta n c e s , s u c h a s w h e n th e p r o s e c u to rw o u ld b e a w itn e s s a t tr ia l, se e U ni ted S ta te s v . P r a n til , 764 F . 2d 548, 552–53 ( 9th C i r . 1985) , orha s a n a c tua l c onf l i c tof in te r e s ts , se e Yo u n gv . Un i te d S ta te s ex r e l . Vu i t to n e t Fi l s S. A. , 481 U . S . 787, 809 ( 1987) (hol di ng “ thatcoun se l for aparty thati s the benefi ci ary of acourtorder m ay no tbe appo i nt ed as prosec ut or i n a cont em ptac t i on al l egi ng a vi ol at i on of that4

order”) . S uch ci rc um st ance s a re no tpres enthere . “ T here i s no autho ri ty w hi ch w oul d a l l ow a de f

e nda ntt o di s qua l i f

y a gove rnm e nta tt orne y by m e r e l y a l l e gi ng po t ent i al ci vi l l i t i gat i on . ” U ni ted Stat es v. W

encke , 60 4 F . 2d 60 7, 61 1 (9th C i r. 19 79 ) ( per c uri am ). Itnece ss ar i l y f ol l ow s thatthe di squal i fi ca t i on of the ent i re U n ite d S ta te s A tto rn e y ’s o f f ic e w a s n o t r e q u ir e d . C

f . U n i ted S ta tes v. L o ren zo , 995 F . 2d 14 48 , 14 52 –5 3 (9th C i r. 19 93 ). T h e d i stri ctco u rt ’ s d eci si o n s t o ad m i tcert ai n ev i d en ce d o n o tj u st i fy a r e ve r s a l of

C a o’ s c onvi c t i on. A ttr i a l , C a o obj e c t e d t o the a dm i s s i on of s om e , but no tal l , of the no w di sput ed evi dence. “ W e r evi ew a di stri ctcourt ’ s e vi dent i ary rul i ngs f ora n abus e of

di s c r e t i on a nd i t s i nt e rpr e t a t i on of the F e de r a l R ul e s of E vi dence de no vo . ” U

n i ted S ta tes v. W

a ters , 62 7 F . 3d 34 5, 35 1– 52 (9th C i r. 20 10 ).

“ T he de nov o st andard appl i es w hen i ss ues of l aw predom i nat e i n the di stri ct c our t ’ s e vi de nt i a ry a na l y s i s , a nd the abus e - of - di s c r e t i on s t a nda r d appl i e s w he n the i nq ui ry i s e ss ent i al l y f

ac tual . ” U

ni ted Stat es v. M

at eo-Mendez , 215 F . 3d 1039, 10 42 (9th C i r. 20 00 ) ( i nt ernal qu ot at i on m arks om i tt ed). W here an obj ec t i on w as erroneou sl y overrul ed, “ w e r ever se on l y i f the error w as no tharm l es s. ” U ni ted State s v . D e r i ngton , 2 2 9 F .3 d 1 2 4 3 , 1 2 4 7 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 0 ) . W h e r e a d e f e n d a n t d id n o t o b je c t to th e c h a lle n g e d e v id e n c e a t tr ia l, “w e r e v ie w th e a d m is s io n o f th is e v id e n c e f

o rp la in e rr o r .” U

ni te d State s v . R e

y e s - B os que , 5 9 6 F .3 d 1 0 1 7 , 1 0 3 2 ( 9 thT here w as a proper basi s f or the di stri ctcourtt o adm i tsom e e vi dence 1 c o n d itio n a lly . T h e c o u r t d id n o t m a k e f in a l ru lin g s o n th e e v id e n c e c o n d itio n a lly a d m itte d . H o w e v e r , th e c o u r t w a s n o t r e q u ir e d to r e v is it s u a s p o n te its ru lin g s to a d m it e v id e n c e c o n d itio n a lly . R a th e r , th e b u r d e n w a s o n d e f e n d a n t to m o v e to s tr ik e th e c o n d itio n a lly a d m itte d e v id e n c e . See H uddl es ton v. U

ni ted Stat es , 485 U .S . 6 8 1 , 6 9 0 n .7 ( 1 9 8 8 ) ; Sa cr am ento Sub urba n Frui t L an ds C o. v. Mi l l er , 36 F . 2d 922, 922 ( 9th C i r . 1929) . C a o di d notdo s o. 5 C i r. 20 10 ). M ostof the evi dence thatdefe nd antchal l enges w as prop er l y a dm i tt ed b y th e d is tr ic t c o u r t. I n a ny e ve nt , the a dm i s s i on of a ny e vi de nc e tha tm i ghtha ve 1 b e e n in a d m is s ib le a t m o s t c o n s titu te d h a r m le s s e rr o r . See U ni ted Stat es v. G on zal ez -Flores , 41 8 F . 3d 10 93 , 10 99 (9th C i r. 20 05 ). T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s d e n ia l o f C a o ’s m o tio n f

o ra c q u itta l u n d e rF e d e r a l R u le of C r i m i na l P r oc e dur e 29 w a s note rr one ous . V i e w i ng the e vi de nc e c onc e rni ng the us e of i nt e r s t a t e w i r e s i n f

ur the r a nc e of

the a l l e ge d s c he m e t o de f r a ud “ i n the l i ght m o s t f a v o r ab le to th e p r o s e c u tio n , any r a t i ona l tr i e rof f a c tc oul d ha ve f

ound the es se nt i al el em ent s of the cr i m e bey on d a re as on abl e dou bt . ” J a c k s o n v . V ir g in ia , 4 4 3 U .S . 3 0 7 , 3 1 9 ( 1 9 7 9 ) . “W h e r e o n e d o e s a n a c t w ith k n o w le d g e th a t th e u s e o f th e [ w ir e s ] w ill f ol l ow i n the or di na ry c our s e of bus i ne s s , orw he r e s uc h us e c a n r e a s onabl y be f or e s e e n, e ve n though nota c tua l l y i nt e nde d, the n he ‘ c a us e s ’ the [ w i r e s ] t o beP erei ra i s aca se i nv ol vi ng m ai l fr aud. H ow ever , “ [i ] ti s w el l se tt l ed that 2 c a s e s c o n s tru in g th e m a il f r a u d a n d w ir e f

r a u d s ta tu te s a r e ap p lic ab le to e ith e r .” U ni ted Stat es v. Sh i

psey , 363 F . 3d 962, 971 n. 10 ( 9th C i r . 2004) . 6 used. ” P er ei ra v. U

ni ted Stat es , 3 4 7 U .S . 1 , 8

– 9 ( 1 9 5 4 ) . A r a tio n a l ju r o rc o u ld 2 have foun d thatC ao kn ew or re as on abl y c ou l d h ave f ores ee n thathi s use of a c r e d it c a r d to p a y f

o rth e in v e s to re v e n t in D e c e m b e r2 0 0 6 w o u ld c a u s e in te r s ta te w ir e s to b e u s e d in th e o r d in a ry c o u r s e o f b u s in e s s to o b ta in p a y m e n t f o rth e e v e n t. In addi t i on , a r at i on al j uror coul d h ave f ou nd thatthe use of i nt er st at e w i re s w as i n furthera nce of C ao’ s s chem e. T o b e i n furthera nce of a s chem e, the charged w i r e tr a ns m i s s i on “ ne e d notbe a n e s s e nt i a l e l e m e ntof the s c he m e . I ti s s uf

f i c i e nt f orthe [ us e of

i nt e r s t a t e w i r e s ] t o be i nc i de ntt o a n e s s e nt i a l pa r tof the s c he m e , or a s t ep i n [the] pl ot . ” Schm uck v . U ni ted Stat es , 489 U . S . 705, 710–11 ( 1989) ( s e c ond a l t e r a t i on i n or i gi na l ) ( c i t a t i ons om i tt e d) ( i nt e rna l quot a t i on m a r ks o m itte d ) ( c a s e in v o lv in g m a il f r a u d ) ; see a l

so U ni ted Stat es v. G arl i ck , 240 F . 3d 789, 795 ( 9th C i r . 2001) ( quot i ng Schm uck , 48 9 U . S . at71 1) (c as e i nv ol vi ng w i re f r a ud) . T he w i r e f

r a ud s t a tut e pr os c r i be s us i ng the w i r e s t o pr om ot e a s c he m e by l ul l i ng vi c t i m s i nt o be l i e vi ng “ tha ta l l i s w e l l , di s c our a gi ng [ the m ] f r om i nv es t i gat i ng and u ncov er i ng the fr aud. ” U ni ted States v. Jones , 712 F . 2d 1316, 1 3 2 1 ( 9 th C ir . 1 9 8 3 ) ; see a l so U n i ted S ta tes v. M

a ze , 4 1 4 U .S . 3 9 5 , 4 0 3 ( 1 9 7 4 ) . A ra t i on al j uror coul d h ave c on cl ud ed thatsust ai ni ng the appearance thathe w as an7

extre m el y s ucce ss ful i nv es t or w as es se nt i al t o C ao’ s P on zi sc hem e, w hi ch depend ed, i n p art , on i m pres si ng exi st i ng i nv es t ors s o they w ou l d n otw i thd ra w th e irf u n d s . C f. Schm uck , 489 U . S . a t711–12. I tw oul d ha ve be e n r e a s onabl e f or s u c h a ju r o rto f

in d th a t C a o h o s te d th e D e c e m b e r2 0 0 6 e v e n t a t a n o p u le n t h o te l to i m pr e s s hi s i nve s t or s , tw o of w hom t e s t i f

i e d tha tthe D e c e m be r2006 e ve nt c ontr i but e d t o the i rc onf i de nc e i n the i ri nve s tm e nt s w i th C a o. C a o’ s us e of

hi s c r e di tc a r d t o pa y f

orthe D e c e m be r2006 i nve s t ore ve nt caused i nt er st at e w i re s t o b e use d i n a m anner thatre as on abl y c ou l d h ave been vi ew ed as i nci dentt o C ao’ s e ff ort s t o i nst i l l confi dence i n h i s i nv es t ors. A ra t i on al j uror coul d h ave c on cl ud ed thatthe D ec em ber 200 6 i nv es t or eventdepend ed, at l ea sti n p art , on C ao usi ng hi s c re di tca rd t o p ay bo th the depo si tre qu i re d b ef ore th e ev en tan d th e b al an ce d u e aft er i t . T h i s d i st i n g u i sh es th e i n st an tcase fro m th o se o n w h i ch C ao p ri m ari l y rel i es, su ch as M a ze , 4 1 4 U .S . a t 4 0 2 , P arr v . U ni ted Stat es , 36 3 U . S . 37 0, 39 3 (19 60 ), a nd Kan n v. U ni ted Stat es , 323 U . S . 88, 94 ( 1 9 4 4 ) . I n c o n tr a s t to th o s e c a s e s , C a o c a u s e d th e w ir e s to b e u s e d b e f o r e h is sc hem e had succe eded i n o bt ai ni ng al l of the frui t s of the fr aud, and i tw as im p o r ta n t to th e s u c c e s s o f h is c o n tin u in g s c h e m e th a t in te r s ta te w ir e s b e u s e d to p r o v id e p a y m e n t f

o rth e D e c e m b e r2 0 0 6 e v e n t. T hatC ao w as conv i ct ed on the w i re fr aud charges r el at i ng t o the D ec em ber8

2006 i nve s t ore ve nta nd a c qui tt e d on the c ha r ge s r e l a t i ng t o the F e brua ry 2007 i nve s t ore ve ntdoe s notm e a n tha tthe j ury r e turne d a n i nc ons i s t e ntve r di c t . T he evi dence w as di ff

er entfor e ac h event . T he j ury heard t es t i m on y f rom w i tness es w ho a tt e nde d the D e c e m be r2006 e ve nt , butdi d nothe a rt e s t i m ony f r om a ny w i tness w ho att ended the F ebruary20 07 event . T here fore , there w as a r at i on al ba s i s f orthe di s t i nc t i on i n the j ury ’ s de c i s i ons . M or e ove r , the c our t ’ s r e vi e w of the s uf f i c i e nc y of

the e vi de nc e r e ga r di ng the D e c e m be r2006 e ve nt“ s houl d be i nd ependentof the j ury’ s det erm i nat i on thatevi dence on ano ther c ou ntw as in s u f f ic ie n t,” a n d a n in c o n s is te n t v e r d ic t a lo n e w o u ld n o t b e a b a s is f o rr e v e r s a l. U n ite d S ta te s v . P o w e ll , 46 9 U . S . 57 , 67 –6 9 (19 84 ). I n d e te r m in in g C a o ’s s e n te n c e , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t d id n o t im p e r m is s ib ly puni s h hi m f

ora s s e r t i ng hi s F i f

th A m e ndm e ntr i ghtt o r e m a i n s i l e ntaboutthe l ocat i on of m on ey he had rece i ved from defr auded i nv es t ors. Itw ou l d h ave been un l aw ful for the di stri ctcourtt o d ra w any a dv er se i nfer ence i f C ao had exerci se d th a t r ig h t. See Mi tchel l

v. U ni ted Stat es , 5 2 6 U .S . 3 1 4 , 3 3 0 ( 1 9 9 9 ) ; U ni ted Stat es v. Sa firs te in , 827 F . 2d 1380, 1388–89 ( 9th C i r . 1987) . H ow e ve r , i f a ts e nt e nc i ng a defe nd antw ai ves hi s F i fth A m endm entri gh tt o rem ai n si l ent , the di stri ctcourtm ay t a ke hi s r e f

us a l t o pr ovi de r e l e va nti nf or m a t i on i nt o a c c ounti n de t e r m i ni ng the se nt ence , i n p artbecause hi s “ re fusa l t o coo pera t e [ m ay ] prot ec t [] hi s f orm er9

pa r tne r s i n c r i m e , the r e by pr e s e r vi ng hi s abi l i ty t o r e s um e c r i m i na l a c t i vi t i e s upon re l ea se . ” R ob er t

s v . U ni ted Stat es , 44 5 U . S . 55 2, 55 8 (19 80 ). T hi s i s s uch a cas e. A f te rc o n s u ltin g c o u n s e l, C a o k n o w in g ly a n d v o lu n ta r ily w a iv e d h is F if th A m e ndm e ntr i ghtt o r e m a i n s i l e nta nd m a de c e r t a i n s t a t e m e nt s . T he r e f or e , the di s tr i c tc our tha d the di s c r e t i on t o c ons i de rhi s f a i l ur e t o pr ovi de i nf

or m a t i on about th e lo c a tio n o f

th e m is s in g m o n e y in d e te r m in in g C a o ’s s e n te n c e . See i d. at 557–59. T he di stri ctcourtal so di d n otabuse i t s di sc re t i on w hen i tchose nott o d epart fr om the G ui del i nes a ft erconsi deri ng defe nd ant ’ s pol i cy ar gu m entthatthe w hi t ec o lla rf r a u d G u id e lin e s la c k a p r o p e re m p ir ic a l f o u n d a tio n . See U

ni ted Stat es v. H e nde rs on , 6 4 9 F .3 d 9 5 5 , 9 6 4 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 1 1 ) . N o rd id th e d is tr ic t c o u r t ab u s e its d is c r e tio n b y im p o s in g a s u b s ta n tiv e ly unr e a s onabl e s e nt e nc e . T he di s tr i c tj udge pr ope r l y c a l c ul a t e d the G ui de l i ne r a nge a nd c ons i de r e d the 18 U . S . C . § 3553( a ) f a c t or s , i nc l udi ng the i nf or m a t i on p r e s e n te d b y th e p a r tie s r e g a r d in g s e n te n c e s in o th e rs im ila rc a s e s . See U ni ted State s v . B l i nki ns op , 606 F . 3d 1110, 1116 ( 9th C i r . 2010) ( “ [ w ] he n a di s tr i c tj udge h a s c o n s id e r e d th e § 3 5 5 3 ( a ) f a c to r s a n d th e to ta lity o f th e c ir c u m s ta n c e s s u p p o r ts the se nt ence , w e have hel d thatthe se nt ence i s s ub st ant i vel y r ea sonabl e” ). In vi ew of the foregoi ng , w e a ff i rm C ao’ s c on vi ct i on and sent ence .10

AF F I RME D.