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. EVE M AZZARELLA,

De fe nda n t-Appe l la

nt. No. 16-10004

D.C . No. 2:08-c r-00064-JC M -GW F-2
M EM O R ANDUM *

UNITED STATES OF AM ER IC A,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lle e , v. STEVEN GRIM M ,

De fe nda n t-Appe l la

nt. No. 16-10007

D.C . No. 2:08-c r-00064-JC M -GW F-1

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ne v a da Jam e s C . M aha

n, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d April 20, 2017 Sa n Fran c isc o , C a lifornia 

# F IL ED JUL 05 2017 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, 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.B e fore : SC HR OEDER and R AW LINSON, C irc uit Judge s, a nd STAFFOR

D, ** Distric t Judge
. De fe nda nts Eve M a z z are lla

and Ste ve n Grim

m a ppe a l the de nia l of the ir
m otions for ne w tria l a

nd the ir se nte nc e s following c onvic tions for m ortga ge fra ud. For the following re a sons, we a ffirm
. M a z z are lla

and Grim

m we re both c onvic te d

of m ortga ge fra

ud c onspira c ie s
and the c onvic tions a

re no longe r a t issue
. Se e Unite d State s v . Mazzare lla , 784 F.3d 532 (9th C ir. 2015); U nite d State

s v . Mazzare lla , 609 F. App’ x 914 (9th C ir. 2015) (c olle c tive ly , “

Mazzare lla I

” ). In Mazzare lla I

, we va c a te d the distric t
c ourt’ s de nia l of the ir pre vious m otions for ne w tria l a nd re m ande d for
c onside ra tion of Brady i ssue s a nd a se arc h in possible

viola t ion of the Fourth Am e ndm e nt. On re m and, the distric t

c ourt a uthoriz e d disc ove ry

and he ld a

n e vide ntia

ry he aring. W ith re spe c t to the c l a im e d fa ilure to disc l ose a prom ise of im

m unity to the w itne ss, Je nnife r W olff, the c ourt found the re wa s no im m unity a gre e m e nt. That c o nc lusion wa s supporte d by the te s tim ony

of two Assista

nt U.S. Attorne y s that the re wa s no disc ussion of im m unity . W olff he rse lf c o uld not beloc a te d, but she pre viously ha d

indic a te d no m ore tha

n a subje c tive be lie f that be c a use she wa s

* * The Honora

ble W illia m H. Sta fford, Jr., Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the Northe rn Distric t of Florida , sitting by de signa tion. 2a

witne ss she would not be prose c ute d. The distric t c ourt’ s finding is fully supporte d. The distric t c ourt a l so found tha t the m a tte rs ra ise d with re s pe c t to the othe r c la i m e d Brady viola t ions c ould not ha

ve a ffe c te d

the ve rdic t give n the stre ngth of the gove rnm e nt’ s c a se . W e a gre e . The Fourth Am e ndm e nt issue s re late to a se arc h c onduc te d by e m

ploy e e s B rown a nd M ark of c om

pa ny re c ords, a

t the be he st of the gove rnm e nt. Se e Mazzare lla I

, 784 F.3d a

t 539–41; Unite d

State s v . Re e d , 15 F.3d 928, 931 (9th C ir. 1994). The distric t c ourt c ould not find ev ide nc e to support a finding tha

t suc h a
se arc h took pla c e , and furthe r de te rm ine d tha t a ll of the doc um e nts use d at tria l
c ould be tra c e d to othe r, inde pe nde nt sourc e s. The re wa s no e rror. M a z z are lla

and Grim

m both c ha lle nge the ir se nte nc e s a s we l l. The distric t
c ourt gra nte d e a c h of the m

a substa ntia lly be low guide line s se nte nc e , 14 y e ars for M a z z are lla

and 25 y e a

rs for Grim

m . The guide l ine s se nte nc e for both de fe nda nts
wa s life prim arily due to the c a lc ulation of loss c a use d by the ir fra ud. B oth de fe nda n ts a rgue tha t the distric t c ourt e rre d by fa iling to m a ke an e xplic it guide l ine s c a lc ulation, but the distric t c o urt re pe a te dly

re fe rre d to the life se nte nc e
c a lc ulat ion a

nd indic a te d tha

t it wa s too high. Furthe

r, the se nte n c e wa s a lm ost
e ntire l y drive n by the loss c a lc u lation, a nd the re wa s no e rror in the loss
c a lc ulat ion. Se e Unite d

State s v . Be e c roft , 825 F.3d 991, 998–99 (9th C ir. 2016)

3(holding tha

t the loss c a lc ulation use d for M a z z are l la and Grim

m ’ s c o-de fe nda

nt B e e c roft, the sa

m e c a lc ulation use d

for M a z z a

re lla and Grim

m , c onta ine d no
e rrors). M a z z are lla

and Grim

m ’ s se nte n c e s we re both substa n tive ly re a sona ble in light of the

se riousne ss of the ir c rim e , the ir re lative le ve ls of c ulpa bility , a nd the high le ve l of fra

ud involve d a

nd num e rosity

of vic tim s. In the re late d Be e c roft

opinion, wea lso he ld tha t forfe iture orde re d

to c ode fe nda n t M e lissa

B e e c roft on C ount 1 (c onspira c y ) for $107 m illion dolla rs
a ppe are d to be an e xc e ssive fine unde r the Eighth Am e ndm e nt, give n the disc re pa nc y be twe e n tha

t fine and the m a xim

um guide line fine for c onspira c y and the l a c k of e xpla nation for the m a gnitude of the forfe iture
. Be e c roft , 825 F.3d a t 1000–02. The

sa m e forfe iture orde r wa s e nte re d a ga inst both M a z z are lla and Grim m , a nd the grounds disc u sse d with re ga rds to B e e c roft a

re e qua lly a

pplic a ble to M a z z are lla

and Grim

m . The forfe iture orde r in the se se nte nc e s for C ount 1
m ust the re fore a l so be va c a t e d. The orde r of the distric t c ourt de ny ing the m otions for a ne w tria l a

re AFFIRM E D . The orde r of forfe iture for C o unt 1 is V ACAT E D , a nd we RE M A ND for re c onside ra tion of thea p p ropriate am ount of suc h forfe i ture . The
re m a inde r of the de fe nda

nts’ se nte nc e s a

re AFFIRM E D
. Ea c h pa rty is to be ar its
own c osts.
4