N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C U IT UNITED STATES OF AM ER IC A,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lle e , v. JOHN LEE B ERR

Y III, aka JB , De fe nda n t-Appe l la

nt. No. 17-10197

D.C . No. 4:14-c r-00582-JD-3
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Northe rn Distric t of C a lifornia Jam e s Dona

to, Distric t Judge , Pre s iding Subm itte d July 11, 2018 ** San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : TASHIM A, GR

AB E R , a nd HUR W ITZ, C irc uit Judge s . A jury c onvic te d De fe nda

nt John B e rry

III of a g re e ing to rig bids a t hom e fore c losure a

u c tions, in viola

tion of theShe rm an Ac t, 15 U.S.C . § 1. The distric t c ourt se nte nc e d

De fe n d ant to 10 months’ im p risonm e nt followe d by

a pe riod of supe rvise d re le a se . W e a ffirm
. 

# FIL ED JUL 19 2018 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

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.

* * T he pa ne l una nim ously c onc lude s tha

t this c a se is suita

ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).1. The gove rnm e nt offe re d suffic i e nt e v ide nc e for a re a sona ble juror to
c onc lude tha

t De fe nda nt’ s c onduc t oc c urre d " within theflow" of inte rstate c om m e rc e . M c La in v. R e a l Esta te B d. of Ne w Orle ans, Inc ., 444 U.S. 232, 235 (1980). Although a

l l a uc tions a t issue took pla c e in Ala

m e da C ounty , C a l ifornia , the g ove rnm e nt offe re d e vide n c e tha t those a uc tions func tione d

a s " inte gra l pa

rts," Goldfa rb v. Va . State B ar, 421 U.S. 773, 785 (1975), of va rious inte rstate tra

nsfe rs. For e xam ple , Da nli Liu, one

of De fe nda

nt’ s c o-c onspira

tors, te stifie d tha

t she won one of the rigge d a

uc tions a nd, a s a re sult, se nt a c a shie r’ s c he c k to a truste e in Ariz ona . Tha

t sa m e truste e late r se nt Liu, from Ariz ona to C a lifornia , a

pa rtia l
re fund in c o njunc tion with the sam e sa le . Tha t te stim ony

and othe r e vide nc e , vie w e d in the light m ost fa vora ble to the ve rdic t, Unite d State s v. Uba ldo, 859 F.3d 690, 699 (9th C ir. 2017), c e rt. de nie d , 138 S. C t. 704 (2018), supports the
c onc lusion tha

t the sc he m e at

issue took pla c e " within the flow" of inte rstat e c om m e rc e , M c La in, 444 U.S. a t 235, 241–43. 2. B id rigging is a

pe r se viola

tion of theShe rm an Ac t . Unite d State s v. Gre e n, 592 F.3d 1057, 1068 (9th C ir. 2010). To prove tha t a de fe nda

n t c om m itte d
a pe r se She rm an Ac t

viola tion, thegove rnm e nt ne e d not provetha t the de fe nda

nt
a c te d " with thepurpose of a c hie ving a ntic om pe t itive e ffe c ts or with the knowle dge that suc h e ffe c ts like ly

would re sult." Unite d State s v. B rown, 936 F.2d 1042,

21046 (9th C ir. 1991). R a the r, in suc h c a se s, the gove rnm e nt ne e d prove only tha t the d e fe nda

nt a c te d with theinte nt to e nte r the a gre e m e nt a t issue . Id. The gove rnm e nt’ s e v ide nc e
— for e xam p le , te stim ony

tha t De fe nda n t a gre e d to rig
c e rta in a uc t ions—is suffic ie nt to support tha t c onc lusion he re . De fe n d ant’ s argum e nt tha

t he fa ile d to re a liz e tha

t bid rigging wa s not m e re ly " norm a l pra c tic e in the industry " i s una

va i ling be c a

use we m ust vie w the e vide n c e in the light m ost favora ble to the ve rdic t . Uba ldo, 859 F.3d a t 699. AFFIRM E D.

3