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. KEVIN SAWYER , De fe nda

nt - Appe lla

nt. No. 13-30125

D.C . No. 6:10-c r-60122-AA-2
M EM O R ANDUM *

UNITED STATES OF AM ER IC A, Plaintiff - Appe lle e , v. TAM AR A SAWYER , De fe nda

nt - Appe lla

nt. No. 13-30127

D.C . No. 6:10-c r-60122-AA-1

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ore gon Ann L. Aike n, C hie f Distric t Judge , Pre siding A rgue d a nd Subm itte d

August 25, 2014 Se attle , W a s hington 

# FIL ED SEP 08 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.B e fore : NOONAN, HAWK INS, and C HR ISTEN, C irc u it Judge s.

De fe nda nts, a husba nd a nd wife , we re c ha

rge d in a twe nt y -one c o unt indic tm e nt with c onspira c y , wire fra u d, ba nk fra ud, m aking fa lse sta

te m e nts to a fina nc ia l institution, a

nd m one y la unde ring. Thec ha

rge s ste m from a lle ge d re a l
e sta te inve s tm e nt fra

ud a nd m ortga ge fra

ud sc he m e s. 1 Afte r the distric t c ourt gran te d the gove rnm e nt’ s m otion in lim ine to e xc lude e v ide nc e of de fe nda nts’ inte nt or a bility to re pa y the inve stors in the

sc he m e s, de fe nda

nts e nt e re d
c onditional guilty

ple a s re s e rving the ir right to c ha l le nge tha t ruling. They c onte nd the e xc lude d e vide nc e is re le v ant to e sta blishing the ir spe c ific inte nt to de fraud, whic h is a

n e le m e nt of se ve ra l of the c ha rge s a ga inst the m . W e hav e jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291 a nd a ffirm the distric t c ourt’ s orde r. 1. W e re vie w a distric t c ourt’ s e vide ntia ry rulings for a

buse of disc re tion. Unite d State

s v . W ate rs , 627 F.3d 345, 351–52 (9th C i r. 2010). W e c onc lude the distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re t ion by e xc luding e vide n c e of de fe nda n ts’ inte nt or a

bility to re pa y a s irre le va

nt unde r Fe de ra l R

ule of Evide nc e 401. The a

bility to re pa y is irre le va

nt be c a use to prove fraud, the gove rnm e nt only
ne e de d to show tha

t the Sawy e rs inte nde d to de c e ive inve s tors a bout whe re and

1 The pa

rtie s a re fam ilia r with thefa c t s of the c a se , so we will not re c o unt the m

he re . 2how t

he y inte nde d to usethe m one y . The Ninth C irc uit, a s we ll a s e ve ry othe r c irc uit c ourt to a ddre ss the issue , ha s de te rm ine d tha t a de fe nda nt’ s inte nt to repa

y his or he r vic t i m s is not a de fe nse to c rim ina l fra

ud c ha rge s. Se e Unite d State

s v . Tre adw e ll , 593 F.3d 990, 997 (9th C ir. 2010) (“ The inte nt to induc e one ’ s vic tim to give up his or he r prope rty on the ba sis of a

n inte ntiona l m isre p re se ntat ion c a use s

‘ h arm ’ by de priving thevic tim

of the opportunity

to we igh the true be ne fits a nd risks of thetra

nsa c tion, re ga

rdle ss of whe the r or not the vic tim will suffe r the pe rm ane nt loss of mo ne y

or prope rty .” ); 2 Unite d State s v . Ore n , 893 F.2d 1057, 1062 (9th C ir. 1990) (“ [O] ne de frauds a nothe r whe n

he c a use s him to be

‘ d e p rive [d] . . . of prope rty by m e ans of fa lse . . . re pre se ntations.’ ” ) (quoting C arpe nte r v . Unite d State

s , 484 U.S. 19, 27 (1987) (a lte ration in origina

l )); Unite d State s v . Be nny , 786 F.2d 1410, 1417 (9th C ir. 1986) (“ While an hone st, good-fa ith be lie f in the truth of them isre pre se ntations m ay ne g ate inte nt to de fraud, a good-fa ith be lie f that the vic tim will bere pa id a

nd will susta

in no loss is no de fe nse at a ll.” ). Whe the r the y c ould pa y inve stors ba c k is irre le va nt be c a use it

2 Se e also Unite d State s v . Hamilton , 499 F.3d 734, 736–37 (7th C ir. 2007); U nite d State

s v . C urry , 461 F.3d 452, 458 (4th C ir. 2006); Unite d State s v . Danie l , 329 F.3d 480, 488 (6th C i r. 2003); Unite d State s v . K arro , 257 F.3d 112, 118 (2d C ir. 2001); Unite d S t ate s v . Sc ott , 701 F.2d 1340, 1347–48 (11th C ir. 1983); U nite d State

s v . Southe rs , 583 F.2d 1302, 1307–08 (5th C ir. 1978).

3doe s not m ake a fa c t of c onse que nc e (inte nt to de c e ive ) m ore or le ss proba ble tha n it would bewithout the

e vide n c e . Fe d. R . Evid. 401. C iting Unite d State

s v . Thomas , 32 F.3d 418 (9th C ir. 1994), de fe n da nts
argue the y should ha

ve be e n pe rm itte d to pre se nt to thejury the stronge st
c irc um s ta ntia l e vide nc e re ga

rding thepre se nc e or a

bse n c e of spe c ific inte nt to de fraud— and tha

t the ir a bility to re pa y c onstitute d suc h e v ide nc e . B ut Thomas is distinguisha

b le
. Thomas involve d m a il fra u d, a c ha rge not a t issue he re , a

n d the
m a il fra ud sta tute ha s c ha

nge d sinc e the tim e of the Thomas de fe nda nt’ s a c t ions. Id. at 419. At tha

t tim e , de priva

tion of hone st se rvic e s and fa ir de a ling did not
c onstitute a m a il fra ud offe n se ; rathe r, in orde r to c om m it m a il fra

ud, a de fe nda nt
m ust ha ve inte nde d

to de prive his or he r vic t im s of m one y or prope rty . Id . Tha

t is not the c a se he re . Tre adw e ll , 593 F.3d a t 998 (“ To our knowle dge , our pre c e de nts
e sta blishing tha

t § 1343 [wirefra

ud] doe s not re quire an inte nt to c a use pe c unia

ry loss a re c onsiste nt

with thevie ws of a ll othe r c irc uits tha t ha v e a ddre sse d the issue .” ). 2. Eve n if e vide nc e of the Sawy e rs’ a bility to re pa y we re re le va

nt, it wa s e xc luda ble unde r Fe de ra l R

ule of Evide nc e 403 be c a use the probative va lue of the proffe re d e vide nc e wa s substa ntia lly outwe ighe d by the da

nge r tha t the jury would

4be c o nfuse d or m isle d. In the distric t c o urt’ s words, a dm i tting thee vide nc e would

have like l y “ c onfuse [d] the jury ” and “ give [n] the m a c ha nc e to c om

m it e rror.” 3. W e a l so c onc lude the distric t c ourt’ s e vide ntia ry ruling did not viola

te the Sa wy e rs’ due proc e ss rights. The distric t c ourt a c k n owle dge d

the possibility that de fe n da nts c ould offe r the e xc lude d te stim ony

on a lte rnate grounds, a

nd tha t the y ha d the right to pre se nt a de fe nse ; it only

rule d tha t the de fe nse “ ne e ds to bea re le va nt de fe nse .” De fe nda

nts we re not de nie d

the opportunity

to pre se nt a de fe nse . AFFIRM E D.

5