NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) No. 12-50594 ) Plaintiff - Appellee, ) D.C. No. 8:11-cr-00151-CJC-1 ) ) MEMORANDUM * v. ) ) CHRISTIAN EUNSUNG CHUNG, ) ) Defendant - Appellant. ) ) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) No. 12-50605 ) Plaintiff - Appellee, ) D.C. No. 8:11-cr-00151-CJC-2 ) ) v. ) ) KU IL LEE, ) ) Defendant - Appellant. ) ) Appeals from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Cormac J. Carney, District Judge, Presiding 

# FILED
MAR 18 2014 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.Submitted March 5, 2014 ** Pasadena, California Before: FERNANDEZ, GRABER, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges. Christian Eunsung Chung and Ku Il Lee appeal their convictions and sentences for wire fraud. See 18 U.S.C. § 1343. We affirm. (1) Chung and Lee first assert that the evidence was insufficient to support the jury’s determination that they intentionally participated in a scheme that used the wires to defraud the Medi care program operated by the United States Department of Health and Human Services. Seeid. ; United States v. Jinian , 725 F.3d 954, 960 (9th Cir. 2013); United States v. Blitz , 151 F.3d 1002, 1006 (9th Cir. 1998). We disagree. The evidence was sufficient because, “‘after viewing the evidence in the light most favor able to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.’” United States v. Nevils , 598 F.3d 1158, 1163–64 (9th Cir. 2010) (en banc); see also Jackson v. Virginia , 443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S. Ct. 2781, 2789, 61 L. Ed. 2d 560 (1979). More specifically, the evidence wa s ample to show that it was foreseeable

** The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
2that wire transmissions would be used to carry out the scheme 1 and that Chung and Lee specifically intended to defraud the government. 2 (2) Chung and Lee next argue that there was plain error 3 when the government objected to a question about the comparison of handwriting in certain documents, which was asked of one ofthe government’s witnesses on crossexamination. The government’s objection that a certified document examiner was not present and that the documents spoke for themselves was promptly overruled by the district court, and the line of ques tioning went forward without further ado. The objection neither tended to shift th e burden of persuasion to the defense 4 nor vouched for the witness. 5 There was no plain error. (3) Chung and Lee finally argue that their sentences violate the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constituti on. U.S. Const. amend. VI. Their

1 SeeJinian , 725 F.3d at 960, 966.
2 SeeUnited States v. Pelisamen , 641 F.3d 399, 409 (9th Cir. 2011); United States v. Ciccone , 219 F.3d 1078, 1084 (9th Cir. 2000); United States v. Lothian , 976 F.2d 1257, 1262–63, 1267 (9th Cir. 1992); see also United States v. Boone , 951 F.2d 1526, 1538–39 (9th Cir. 1991).
3 SeeUnited States v. Olano , 507 U.S. 725, 732–35, 113 S. Ct. 1770, 1776–78, 123 L. Ed. 2d 508 (1993).
4 SeeUnited States v. Necoechea , 986 F.2d 1273, 1282 (9th Cir. 1993).
5 SeeUnited States v. Weatherspoon , 410 F.3d 1142, 1146 (9th Cir. 2005). 3argument fails because the district court’s calculation of loss for guideline purposes 6 affected neither a ma ndatory minimum sentence 7 nor the maximum possible sentence 8 for wire fraud crimes. 9 AFFIRMED.

6 SeeUSSG §2B1.1(b) (Nov. 2012); see also United States v. Torlai , 728 F.3d 932, 938 n.6 (9th Cir. 2013).
7 SeeAlleyne v. United States , __ U.S. __, __, 133 S. Ct. 2151, 2155, 186 L. Ed. 2d 314 (2013).
8 SeeApprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466, 490, 120 S. Ct. 2348, 2362–63, 147 L. Ed. 2d 435 (2000).
9 The statutory sentencing range is imprisonment for “not more than 20 years.” 18 U.S.C. § 1343. 4