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,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lle e , v. JIAN B ING WU,

De fe nda n t-Appe l la

nt. No. 15-10188

D.C . No. 1:12-c r-00057-FM TG-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 Gua m Fran c e s Ty dingc o-Gate wood, C h ie f Judge , Pre siding Argue d a n d Subm itte d Oc tobe r 18, 2016 Honolulu, Ha

wa ii B e fore : WALLAC E, FAR R IS, and WATFORD, C irc uit Judge s. Jia n B ing W u a ppe a ls his c onvic tion for c onspira c y to c om m it m arria ge fraud, in viola

tion of 18 U.S.C . § 371, a nd m arria ge fra

ud, in viola

tion of 8 U.S.C
. § 1325(c ). He c ha lle nge s the distric t c ourt’ s de nia l of his m otions for judgme nt of
a c quitta l a

nd his m otion for mistria l a nd dismissa l ba se d on a

purporte d B rady

/ 

# FIL ED NOV 03 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S
. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.Giglio viola

tion. W u a lso c ha lle nge s the distric t c ourt’ s de c i sion to de live r an Alle n c ha rge to the jury . W e have jurisdic t ion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291. W e a ffirm
. W e re vie w a distric t c ourt’ s de nia l of a m otion for a c q

uitta l de novo, vie w ing the e vide nc e in the light m ost fa vora ble to the prose c ution to de te rm ine whe the r any

ra tiona l trie r of fa c t c o uld ha ve found the e sse ntia l e le m e nts of the
c rim e be y ond a

re a sona ble doubt. Se e Unite d State s v . Riggins , 40 F.3d 1055, 1057 (9th C ir. 1994). Unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1325(c ), it is a c rim e to “ knowingly

e nte r[] into a m arria ge for the purpose of e va ding a ny provision of the

im m igration la

ws.” W e e xam ine whe the r, in vie w of a ll of the fa c ts a nd c irc um sta

nc e s , the c o uple

“ inte n d[e d] to e sta

blish a life toge t he r a t the tim e the y

we re m arrie d.” Bark

v . IN S , 511 F.2d 1200, 1201 (9th C ir. 1975). Thee vide nc e introduc e d at tria l, vie w e d in the l ight m ost fa

vora ble to the p rose c ution, would a llow a ny ra tiona l trie r of fa c t to
c onc lude tha

t W u m arrie d his wife to obta in a gre e n c ard and tha

t the c ouple did not inte nd to e sta

blish a life toge the r a t the tim e the y we re m arrie d. Ac c ordingly , the d istric t c o urt did not err in de ny ing W u ’ s m otions for a c quitta l
. The distric t c ourt a l so did not err in de ny ing W u’ s m otion for a

m istria l a n d dism issa l ba se d on the prose c ution’ s fa ilure to disc lose be fore tria l tha t W u’ s e xwife , a gove rnm e nt witne s s, inte nde d to disa vow he r prior writte n sta

te m e nt. W e re vie w a de nia l of a

m otion for mistria l for a

n a buse of disc re tion. Se e Unite d
2State

s v . N e lson , 137 F.3d 1094, 1106 (9th C ir. 1998). C ha lle nge s to a c onvic tion for a l le ge d Brady

/ Giglio viola

tions a re re vie we d de novo. Se e Unite d State s v . Vge ri , 51 F.3d 876, 880 (9th C ir. 1995). He re , the distric t c ourt c orre c tly obse rve d that the prose c ution wa s unde r an obliga tion to inform

W u of his wife ’ s disa

vowa l of he r prior writte n

sta te m e nt, but tha

t no B rady

/ Giglio viola

tion oc c urre d a

nd no
m istria l wa s wa

rrante d be c a

use the inform a tion c am e to light e a rly in the tria l while it wa s “ still of substa ntia l va lue ” to the de fe nse . Unite d State s v . Gordon , 844 F.2d 1397, 1403 (9th C ir. 1988); se ealso United State s v . C hung , 659 F.3d 815, 831 (9th C ir. 2011). Fina lly , the distric t c ourt did not a b use its disc re tion in de live ring a n Alle n c ha rge a fte r the jury

inform e d the c ourt it ha d de a dloc ke d. W e m

ust uphold the distric t c o urt’ s de c ision unle ss the re c ord m ake s it c le a r tha t the A l le n c h arge ha d a
c oe rc ive e ffe c t on the jury
. Se eUnite d State s v . Daas , 198 F.3d 1167, 1179 (9th C ir. 1999). W e disc e rn no c oe rc ive e ffe c t he re in light of the ne utra l form of the
c ha rge give n, the le ngth of tim e the jury de l ibe ra t e d a fte r re c e iving thec ha rge in
re lation to the

tota l tim e of de libe ra tion, a nd the la c k of a

ny othe r indic ia of
c oe rc ive ne ss in there c ord. Se e Unite d State s v . Ste e le , 298 F.3d 906, 911 (9th C ir. 2002); D aas , 198 F.3d a

t 1180; Unite d State

s v . He rnande

z , 105 F.3d 1330, 1334 (9th C ir. 1997).
3AFFIR M ED.

4