* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,
v. JUAN C. TENORIO, Defendant - Appellant. No. 09-10022 D.C. No. 1:07-cr-00078-1
MEMORANDUM *

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,
v. CHARLENE F. TENORIO, Defendant - Appellant. No. 09-10023 D.C. No. 1:07-cr-00078-2

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Guam Frances Tydingco-Gatewood, Ch ief District Judge, Presiding 

# FILED
APR 14 2010 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). *** The Honorable Ricardo S. Martinez, United States District Judge for the Western District of Washington, sitting by designation. 2 Submitted April 12, 2010 **

San Francisco, California Before: NOONAN and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges, and MARTINEZ, District Judge. *** Juan and Charlene Tenorio appeal from their convictions for bankruptcy fraud. They argue that there was in sufficient evidence to support the jury’s determinations that certain accounts recei vable belonged to the bankruptcy estate and that Charlene had the intent to fraudulently conceal interests in insurance policies. We have jurisdiction over th ese appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and we affirm their convictions. Where, as here, a motion for acquittal is denied, we review de novo “whether sufficient evidence exists to support a guilty verdict.” United States v. Stewart , 420 F.3d 1007, 1014 (9th Cir. 2005). We further noted that “[i]n reviewing for sufficiency of the evidence, we assess the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, determining whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id . at 1014-15 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).1 Because the parties are familiar withthe facts and procedural history, we do not restate them here except as necessary to explain our decision. 3 We determine that there was subs tantial evidence to support the jury’s determination that monthly payments we re made by or on behalf of Hong Kong Entertainment (Overseas) Investment Limited to Juan and that he did not list them in either his corporate or personal bankruptcy petitions. 1 These payments should have been revealed to the bankruptcy court. See 11 U.S.C. § 541(a)(1). There was evidence that Juan used so me of these payments to make payments on a personal bank loan. Moreover, evidence that Juan opened a bank account in his mother’s name and directed that the payments be made to that account support the determination that he intende d to conceal the payments. The insurance policies also should have been revealed to the bankruptcy court. See 11 U.S.C. § 541(a)(1). There was ev idence that Charlene handled the household’s finances, paid the insurance premiums, had inquired about the insurance policies surrender values, and knew that her husband had obtained two loans from his policies. She nonethele ss read and signed the bankruptcy petition which fails to mention the policies. These facts distinguish this case from United States v. McCormick , 72 F.3d 1404 (9th Cir. 1995), where the wife did not read the petition before signing it.4 We conclude that the evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, see Stewart , 420 F.3d at 1015, was sufficient to sustain the jury’s determinations that (1) the accounts recei vable belonged to the defendants’ estate and that Juan intended to conceal them, and (2) Charlene had the specific intent to conceal the insurance policies that also belonged to the bankruptcy estate. The convictions of Juan and Charlene Tenorio for bankruptcy fraud are AFFIRMED
.