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. LEONAR

D W ILLIAM S, De fe nda n t-Appe l la

nt. No. 15-10050

D.C . No. 2:08-c r-00376-W B S-GGH-6
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 C a lifornia W illia m B
. Shubb, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d and Subm i tte d Nove m

be r 17, 2016 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : SC HR OEDER , WARDLAW , a n d OW EN S, C irc uit Judge s. Le ona rd W illia m s (“ W illia

m s” ) a ppe a ls his c onvic tion a

n d se nte nc e following a

jury tria l for c onspira c y to c om m it m a il fra

ud a nd wire fra

ud unde r 18 U.S.C . § 1349 a

nd for m one y

la unde ring unde r 18 U.S.C . § 1957. W e have jurisdic tion pursua

n t to 28 U.S.C . § 1291, a

nd we a ffirm
. 

# FIL ED DEC 14 2016 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 Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.1. The distric t c ourt did not pla inly e rr in fa iling to give

the jury a spe c ific una

nim i ty instruc tion. W illia

m s argue s for the first tim e on a ppe a l tha t he
wa s e ntitle d to suc h a

n instruc tion be c a

use the e vide nc e te n de d to show two
c onspira c ie s, produc ing a “ ge nuine possibility

of jury c o n fusion.” Se e Unite d State s v . Lapie r , 796 F.3d 1090, 1096 (9th C ir. 2015) (c ita tion a nd inte rna l quota t ion m arks om itte d). He c onte nds tha t jurors m ay

have found tha

t he
c onspire d ba se d on diffe re nt se t s of fa c ts, without “ una nim ously a gre e [ing] tha

t [W i llia m s wa s] guilty

of pa rtic ipating in a partic ular c onspira c y .” Se e id. (e m pha sis a dde d ). Howe v e r, the gove rnm e nt’ s e vide n c e in fa c t te nde d to show only

a single
c onspira c y , with W illia

m s a nd Joshua C ly m e r a s the princ ipa l c o-c onspira tors. Whe re a s Lapie r fe a ture d two c o nspira c ie s with “no e v ide nc e ” of a ny ove rla p, he re the g ove rnm e nt pre se nte d e vide nc e tha t C ly m e r an d W illia

m s we re involve d in
e ve ry tra n sa c tion. Se e id. a t 1097. Thegove rnm e nt introduc e d e vide nc e tha t, prior to the C h ic o Tra

nsa c tions, C ly

m e r be c am e tre a sure r of the c om pa ny through whic h W illia m s la unde re d m one y , re c e ive d “ bla nke t a uthority ” to se ll its a sse ts, a nd m e t with Arthur W at son, the C hic o hom e buy e r. Though theC hic o a nd Sa c ram e nto Transa c t ions involve d diffe re nt c olla borators a nd tra nsa c tiona l struc t

ure s, this wa s
ne ve rthe le ss c onsiste nt with a single c onspira c y , be c a

u s e a c onspira c y

“ c an inc lude 2subgroups or suba gre e m e nts, a

nd the e v ide nc e doe s not ha ve to e x c lude e v e ry hy pothe s is othe r tha

n tha t of a single c onspira c y .” Se e Unite d State s v . Baue r , 84 F.3d 1549, 1560 (9th C ir. 1996) (c ita tion omi tte d). 2. Nor did the distric t c ourt pla inly e rr in fa iling to find a

c onstruc tive
am e ndm e nt or va

rianc e . W illia

m s a rgue s for the first tim e on a ppe a l tha t the gove rnm e nt pre se nte d “ fa c ts . . . a t tria l distinc tly diffe re nt from those se t forth in the [third a

m e nde d indic t

m e nt] , ” se e Unite d State

s v . Baghat , 436 F.3d 1140, 1145 (9th C ir. 2006) (c ita

tion a nd inte rna l quota

tion m arks om itte d), be c a use the indic tm e nt foc use d on W i llia m s and C ly

m e r a s c o-c onspira

tors, whe re a s at tria l the gove rnm e nt sta

te d tha t the buy e rs “ a ll te stifie d tha t the y a gre e d with M r. W i llia

m s
and M r. C ly

m e r to subm it fa lse loa

n a pplic ations.” Howe ve r, pa ra gra ph te n of the indic tm e nt a lle ge s tha

t W i llia m s a nd C ly m e r “ a gre e [d] with e a c h othe r and with othe rs known a

nd unknown to the

grand jury

to . . . [fra

udule ntly ] obta in funds from le nde rs a nd pa rtic ipa nts in these c onda

ry loa n m arke t . . . .” Give n tha t the buy e rs we re ne c e s sa

rily involve d in obta ining loa ns, a n d tha t the y are m e ntione d

3by

nam e e lse w he re in the indic t m e nt, the indic tm e nt m

ust be re a d to e nc o m

pa ss the m . 1 M ore ove r, at tria l, the gove rnm e nt c ontinue d to foc us on thethe ory tha t W illia m s a n d C ly m e r we re the m a in c o-c onspira tors. Thus, the

gove rnm e nt did not so substa

ntia lly c ha nge its the ory

at tria l tha

t it wa s “ im

possibleto know whe the r the grand jury would ha ve indic t e d for the c rim e a c tua lly prove d .” Se e id. (c ita tion a nd inte rna l quota

tion m arks om itte d). Nor we re the fa c ts the gove rnm e n t sought to prove

at tria l so “ m a te ria l ly

diffe re nt” from

those inc lude d in the indic tm e nt tha

t the y c onstitute d a

m ate ria l va

rian c e . Se e id. at 1146. 3. Suffic i e nt e vide nc e supporte d W illia m s ’ s c onvic tion for c o nspira c y to
c om m it m a il a n d wire fra

ud. Se e 18 U.S.C . § 1349. C ontra ry to W illia m s’ s
c onte ntions, m a ilings of the re c orde d de e ds of trust to the le nde rs we re not “pa

rt of
. . . a fte r-the -fa c t

tra nsa c tion[s] ” tha

t we re “ inc i de nt to thee x e c ution of the
sc he m e . ” Se e Unite d State s v . Lazare nk

o , 564 F.3d 1026, 1036 (9th C ir. 2009) (c ita tion a nd inte rna l quota

tion m arks om itte d). To the c ontra ry , the y we re

“ inc ide n t to a

n e sse ntial pa

rt of the sc h e m e ” be c a

use the y provide d e vide nc e of

1 While W illia

m s a rgue s tha t pa ra g ra ph twe l ve should bere a d to e xc l ude the buy e rs be c a

use it only

re fe rs to thosewho “ re c ruite d” individuals to purc h a se prope rtie s, this pa

ra gra ph doe s not purport to e xha ustive ly list those involve d in the s c he m e . 4c olla

te ra l ne c e s sa

ry to se c ure the loa

ns. Se e Sc h muc k

v . Unite d State

s , 489 U.S. 705, 711 (1989) (e m

pha sis a dde d) (c ita

tion a nd inte rna l quota

tion m arks om itte d). W illia m s a l so a rgue s tha t the gove rnm e nt did not pre se nt suffic i e nt e vide nc e of the inte rstate nature of the wire transfe rs. Se e 18 U.S.C . § 1343. Howe v e r, the
use of the wire sy ste m

is by its ve ry nat

ure inte rstate , be c a

use “ [w] ire s a

re c ha nne ls or instrum e nta l itie s of inte rstat e c om m e rc e .” Se e Unite d State s v . J inian , 725 F.3d 954, 968 (9th C ir. 2013); U nite d State

s v . Ripinsk

y , 109 F.3d 1436, 1444 (9th C ir. 1997) (c onstruing 18 U.S.C . § 1957); Unite d State s v . W r ight , 625 F.3d 583, 594–95 (9th C ir. 2010) (“ the ve ry inte rstate nat

ure of the inte rne t favor[s] finding that the [transm issions] trave le d in inte rstate c o m

m e rc e ,” at le a s t whe re no
e vide nc e is pre se nte d tha

t tra nsa c tions we re pure ly

intra sta te ) (c ita tion a nd inte rna l quota t ion m arks om itte d). M o re ove r, the re is “ no disputetha t the de posits in this
c a se involve d fina

nc ia l institutions e

nga ge d in inte rstate a c tivitie s,” and inde e d,
se ve ra l of the ba

nks involve d we re “ la

rge , we ll-known institutions” he a dqua rte re d outside of C a lifornia , inc luding B ank of Am e ric a , U.S. B ank, a nd JP M orga

n C ha se & C o. S

e e Ripinsk y , 109 F.3d at 1445. The gove rnm e n t e sta

b l ishe d tha

t C IT, the le nde r for the m ortga ge loa n
a ssoc iate d with 2640 C e anothus Drivein C hic o, ope rate d its c onsum e r loa n
se rvic ing sy ste m

out of Ne w Je rse y

and Ne w York. It a lso e s ta blishe d tha

t 5C ly

m e r’ s ba nk, SAFE C re dit Union, sen t a nd re c e ive d funds a c ross sta te line s. W illia m s wrote c he c ks to C l y

m e r to pa y him for his role in the fra

ud, whic h wa s

“ pa rt of the e xe c ution of thesc he m e a s c onc e ive d by [W i llia m s] at the tim e ,”
se rving to m a inta i n a

n “ o ngoing fra

udule n t ve nture .” Se e J

inian , 725 F.3d a

t 961–62 (quoting Sc h muc k, 489 U.S. a t 711, 715). The

proc e ss of c he c k c le aring
m ay form the fa c tua l ba s is for wire fra ud. Id . at 962. Thus, viewing the e vide nc e in the light m ost fa

vora ble to the gove rnm e nt, a

“ ra t iona l trie r of fa c t c ould ha ve found the e sse ntia l e le m e nts of thec rim e be y ond a re a sona ble doubt.” Se e J

ac k son
v . Virginia , 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979). 4. The distric t c ourt did not err in im posing a four-le ve l le a de rship
e nha nc e m e nt pursua

nt to U.S.S.G. § 3B 1.1(a ). The e vide nc e showe d tha t W illia m s
e xe rc ise d a

signific ant de gre e of c ontrol ove r othe rs, doing m uc h m ore tha

n

“ m e re ly sugge st[ing] c om

m itting the

offe nse .” Se e § 3B 1.1(a ) c m t. n.4. He orga niz e d the fra

ud, re c ruite d othe rs into thesc he m e , dire c te d pa y m e nts to
c onfe d e rate s through his c om p anie s, instruc te d

buy e rs to m ake fa lse sta

te m e nts on loa n a pplic a tions a

bout the ir inc om e and e m ploy m e nt sta tus, he lpe d

buy e rs infla

te the i r bank sta

te m e nts, a

n d ve rifie d fa lse inform ation for le nde rs, am ong othe r things. This is suffic ie n t c ontrol to qualify for a le a d e rship e nha

nc e m e nt. Se e § 3B 1.1(a ) c m

t. n.4 (noting le a de rship a nd orga n iz at iona l fa c tors to c onside r). 65. The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion in de ny ing W illia m s’ s
re que s ts to substitute

c ounse l. W illia

m s c onte nds tha

t the c o urt forc e d him

to proc e e d with a

la wy e r with whom

he wa s “ e m

b roile d in irre c onc ila

ble c onflic t.” Se e Brow n v . C

rav e n , 424 F.2d 1166, 1170 (9th C ir. 1970). Howe ve r, the c onflic t be twe e n W illia

m s a nd his c o unse l wa s not “ so gre at tha t it re sulte d in a

tota l la c k of c om m unic a tion pre ve nting a

n a de quate de fe nse .” Unite d State s v . Musa , 220 F.3d 1096, 1102 (9th C ir. 2000). Thetra nsc ripts of he arings be fore the distric t
c ourt a nd the se a le d c orre sponde nc e be twe e n W i llia m s a nd his c ounse l e s ta

blish that the y disa g re e d

ove r how to inte rpre t the la w, ove r tria l stra

t e gy , a nd ove r whe the r W illia

m s should e nte r a

ple a a gre e m e nt. The se are not the ty p e s of dispute s tha

t je opa rdiz e a de fe nda nt’ s Sixth Am e n dm e nt right to c ounse l
. Se e Unite d State

s v . Roge rs , 769 F.2d 1418, 1424 (9th C ir. 1985) (c o unse l’ s pe ssim i stic a sse ssm e nt of c a se and re a sona ble ple a re c om m e ndation not suffic ie nt grounds for substituting c ounse l); Unite d State s v . Re y e s-Bosque , 596 F.3d 1017, 1034 (9th C ir. 2010) (disa g re e m e nt ove r litiga tion ta c t ic s not suffic ie nt grounds for substituting c ounse l). While W illia m s re pe ate d ly

sta te d tha t he distruste d his la wy e r, he did not a l le ge tha t his la wy e r distruste d him in a m anne r that

“ substa n tia lly inte rfe re d with thea

ppointe d c ounse l’ s a

bility to provide a de quate
re pre se ntation.” Se e Unite d State s v . Ade lzo-Gonzale

z , 268 F.3d 772, 780 (9th C ir. 72001). W illia m s ha d no Sixth Am e ndm e n t right to a “ m e aningful re lationship” with his a ttorne y , se e Unite d State

s v . Sc haff

, 948 F.2d 501, 505 (9th C ir. 1991) (c ita tion a nd inte rna l quota

tion m arks om itte d), or to “ c onflic t fre e ” re pre se n tation,
a s he c onte nds on a

ppe a l. M ore ove r, the c ourt m a de suffic ie n tly spe c ific inquirie s into the disa gre e m e nt be t

we e n W illia m s a nd his a ttorne y to de t e rm ine whe the r substitution
wa s wa rrante d. Se e Ade l

zo-Gonzale

z , 268 F.3d a

t 777. At the

first he aring, Judge Garc ia a ske d e nough que stions to c la rify tha t the disa gre e m e nt involve d whe the r to
e nte r a ple a a gre e m e nt. W illia

m s a rgue s tha t the c ourt’ s re fusa l to c le ar the
c ourtroom

re n d e re d its he aring “ ina de quate a s a m atte r of la w.” Unite d

State s v . Gonzale z , 113 F.3d 1026, 1029 (9th C ir. 1997) (fa iling to hold a n e vide n tia

ry he aring to a llow pote ntia lly dispositive

te stim ony

by an inde pe nde nt witne ss wa s
an a b use of disc re tion). B ut W illia m s c ite s no c a se that

e sta blishe s tha

t a distric t
c ourt a buse s its disc re tion a

ny tim e it fa ils to se a l the c ourtroom to he ar a m otion to substitute c ounse l. The c ourt did not a b use its disc re tion by

fa iling to do so he

re , be c a use it wa s a

ble to le a rn the e sse nc e of the dispute in ope n c o urt. M ore o ve r, at the s e c ond he aring, JudgeShubb m a de an inquiry tha t wa s suffic ie nt to e sta

blish that W illia m s a nd his a ttorne y disa g re e d a

bout how the

la w a pplie d to the fa c ts of the c a se , a ffording W illia m s se ve ra l opportunitie s to re but this inte rpre tation. 8Give n tha t the distric t c ourt’ s inquiry wa s suffic ie n t a

nd tha t the c onflic t be twe e n W illia

m s a nd his a ttorne y wa s not e xte nsive e nough to justify substitution, we

ne e d not c onside r the tim e line ss of W illia m s’ s m otions to substitute c ounse l. Se e Ade lzo-Gonzale z , 268 F.3d a

t 777–80. AFFIRM E D.

9