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. STEPHEN M AR TY WARD, AKA Ste phe n M artin W ard De fe nda

nt - Appe lla

nt. No. 14-30154

D.C . No. 2:11-c r-02123-R M P-1
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Ea ste rn Distric t of W a shington R osa nna M a louf Pe te rson, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d Fe brua

ry 1, 2016 Se attle , W a s hington B e fore : KOZINSKI a

nd O’ SC ANNLAIN, C irc uit Judge s, a n d OR R IC K, ** Distric t Judge
. 1. W ard did not time ly obje c t to thesuffic ie n c y

of the indic tm e nt. Ac c ordingly , we re vie w for pla in e rror, U nite d State

s v . Le os-Maldonado , 302



# FIL ED
MAR 23 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U

. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public ation a

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

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.
** The Honora

ble W illia m Horsle y Orric k III, Distric t

Judge for the U.S. Distric t C ourt for the Northe rn Distric t of C a lifornia , sitting by de signa tion.pa ge 2

F.3d 1061, 1064 (9th C ir. 2002), “ libe ra lly c o nstruing the

indic tm e nt in fa

vor of
va lidity ,” Unite d State

s v . Arnt , 474 F.3d 1159, 1162 (9th C ir. 2007) (inte rna l
a lte ra tions omi tte d). W ard ha s not shown tha t he wa s pre

judic e d by

any de fic ie n c y in the indic tm e nt’ s de sc ription of the a lle ge d tra de se c re ts. Se e Unite d State s v . Ve lasc o-Me dina , 305 F.3d 839, 847 (9th C ir. 2002). 2. The re w a s no c onstruc tive am e ndm e n t at tria l. “ A c onstruc tive
am e ndm e nt oc c urs whe n

the de fe nda

nt is c h arge d with onec rim e but, in e ffe c t, is trie d for anothe r c rim e . ” U

nite d State

s v . Lazare nk

o , 564 F.3d 1026, 1034 (9th C ir. 2009). “ For a

c onstruc tive am e ndm e nt to inhe re , jury instruc tions m

ust dive rge m ate ria lly

from the indic tm e nt a

nd e v ide nc e m

ust ha v e be e n introduc e d at tria l tha t would e na

b le the jury

to c onvic t the de fe nda

nt for c onduc t with whic h he
wa s not c ha

rge d.” Unite d State

s v . Alv a re

z -Ulloa , 784 F.3d 558, 570 (9th C ir. 2015) (inte rna l quota

t ion m a rks om itte d); se e also United State s v . W ard , 747 F.3d 1184, 1191 (9th C ir. 2014). Theindic tm e nt in this c a se de sc ribe d the a lle ge d tra de
se c re t inform at ion a s “ inform at ion re late d to the m a inte na nc e an d ope ra tion of
unm anne d a irc ra ft sy ste m s de ve lope d by Insitu Inc o rporate d.” Ne ithe r the jury instruc tions nor the spe c i a l ve rdic t form dive rge d m ate ria l ly

from this la

ngua ge in de sc ribing the spe c ific tra de se c re ts tha t W ard c onve rte d. Nor wa s the re e vide nc e introduc e d at tria l tha

t e na ble d the jury

to c onvic t W ard ba se d

on tra de se c re tpa ge 3

inform at ion be y ond the sc ope of tha t de s c ribe d in the indic tm e nt. 3. W ard’ s c o nte ntion tha t the re wa s a

va ria n c e at tria l a l so fa ils. “ A
va rianc e oc c urs whe n the c h arging te rm s of the indic tm e nt a re le ft una lte re d, but the e vide n c e offe re d at tria l prove s fa c ts m ate ria lly diffe re nt from

those a lle ge d in the i ndic t m e nt.” Unite d

State s v . W i lbur , 674 F.3d 1160, 1178 (9th C ir. 2012) (inte rna l quota

t ion m a rks om itte d). The e vide nc e pre se nte d at tria l did not show that W ard ha d c onve rte d tra de se c re ts m ate ria lly diffe re nt from “ inform ation
re late d to the m a inte na

nc e and ope ration of unm anne d a irc ra ft sy s te m s de ve lope d by Insitu Inc orporate d .” 4. W ard did not time ly

ra ise the issue of duplic ity with thedistric t

c o urt.

“ Whe re a de fe nda n t fa ils to obje c t to a

n indic tm e nt a s duplic itous be fore tria l a nd fa ils to obje c t to thec ourt’ s jury instruc tions a

t tria l, we re vie w for pla in e rror.” Unite d State s v . Arre ola , 467 F.3d 1153, 1161 (9th C ir. 2006). Give n tha t the jury instruc tions a

nd spe c ia l ve rdic t form

re quire d the jury

to una n im ously a gre e on whic h pa rtic ula r tra de s e c re ts W ard ha d c onve rte d, a ny duplic ity e rror in the indic tm e nt is not grounds for re ve rsa l unde r the pla in e rror sta nda rd. Se e Unite d State s v . K e nne dy , 726 F.2d 546, 548 (9th C ir. 1984) (finding no pla in e rror in a

n
a lle ge dly duplic itous indic tm e nt whe re the jury instruc t ions e lim inate d a

ny “ da nge r that the jury c ould c onvic t . . . without re a c hing una nim ous a gre e m e n t on a

give npa ge 4

se t of fa c ts” ). 5. W ard c ha lle nge s the suffic i e nc y of the e vide n c e , whic h we re vie w de
novo. Unite d State

s v . Be nne tt , 621 F.3d 1131, 1135 (9th C ir. 2010). “ A c la im of insuffic ie nt e vide nc e fa ils if a fte r vie wing the e vide nc e in the light m ost fa vora ble to the prose c ution, a

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

re a s ona ble doubt.” Id. (inte rna l quota tion m arks a

nd
e m pha sis om itte d). Vie we d in the light m ost fa vora ble to the prose c ution, the
e vide nc e at

tria l wa s suffic ie nt to a llow a ra tiona l juror to c onc lude tha t W ard wa s guilty of viola ting 18 U.S.C . § 1832(a )(2). W ard’ s argum e nt re ga rding the
m e aning of “

public ” a s use d in 18 U.S.C . § 1839(3)(B ) is a l so without me rit; the distric t c o urt did not c om m it pla in e rror by

not de live ring a

sua sponte instruc tion de fining “ public ” a s “ e c onom ic a lly

re le va nt public .” 6. W ard c onte nds tha

t the distric t c ourt e rre d by se que nc ing the spe c ia l
ve rdic t form

a s it did. “W e tre at ve rdic t form s like jury instruc tions, the form ulat ion of whic h we re vie w for a buse of disc re tion.” Unite d State s v . Stinson , 647 F.3d 1196, 1218 (9th C ir. 2011) (inte rna l c ita tions omitte d). “ Jury instruc tions, e ve n

if im pe rfe c t, a re not a ba sis for ove rturning a c onvic t ion a

bse nt a showing tha

t the y pre judic e d the de fe nda

n t.” Unite d State

s v . C he re r , 513 F.3d 1150, 1155 (9th C ir. 2008). Thespe c ia l ve rdic t form and jury instruc tions a llowe dpa ge 5

the j ury to c onvic t only

if it una nim ously found tha

t one or m o re of the a lle ge d tra de se c re ts qua lifie d for tra de se c re t prote c t ion. Vie we d a s a whole , the spe c ia l
ve rdic t form

and jury instruc tions we re not m isle a ding or ina de quate , a nd the y did not pre judic e W ard. 7. W e re je c t a s m e ritle ss W ard’ s c ha lle nge s unde r the First a nd Fifth Am e ndm e nts for viola

tion of his due

proc e ss, fre e spe e c h, a

nd “ se l fre pre se ntation” rights.
AFFIRM E D.