T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on a nd i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by 9th C i r . R . 36- 3. T he H onor abl e G or don J . Q ui s t , S e ni orU ni t e d S t a t e s D i s tr i c tJ udge f or ** the W e s t e rn D i s tr i c tof

M i c hi ga n, s i tt i ng by de s i gna t i on. NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T UN I T E D S T AT E S OF AME R I C A, P l ai nt i ff

- A pp el l ee , v. J U D Y Y E U N G , a/k/ aM ui W a n Y e ung, D e f

e n d a n t - A p p e lla n t. N o. 10- 10381 D . C . N o. 3: 09 -c r- 00 37 6-S I- 1 ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e N o rth e rn D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia S us a n I l l s t on, D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng A r gue d a nd S ubm i tt e d O c t obe r25, 2011 S a n F r a n c is c o , C a lif

o rn ia B ef ore: G R A B E R and IK U T A , C i rc ui tJudg es , and Q U IS T , S eni or D i stri ct ** Judg e. E ven ass um i ng there w as a var i ance i n p roof betw ee n the si ng l e c on spi ra cy c ha r ge d i n the i ndi c tm e nta nd the thr e e c ons pi r a c i e s a l l e ge dl ypr ove d a ttr i a l , the v ari an ce d i d n o tp rej u d i ce Y eu n g ’ s ri g h t s d u e t o ev i d en t i ary sp i l l o v er b ecau se 

# FI LED FEB 13 2 012 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS2

Y e u n g s to o d tr ia l a lo n e . Se e U ni te d State s v . A ngui ano , 8 7 3 F .2 d 1 3 1 4 , 1 3 1 8 ( 9 th C ir . 1 9 8 9 ) ; s e e a ls o U

n ite d S ta te s v . L iu , 6 3 1 F .3 d 9 9 3 , 1 0 0 0 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 1 1 ) . Y e ung’ s r e l i a nc e on U

ni ted Stat es v. L azarenko , 56 4 F . 3d 10 26 (9th C i r. 20 09 ), w h ic h in v o lv e dr e tr o a c tiv e m is jo in d e r , is m is p la c e d , b e c au s e th e g o v e rn m e n t d id n o t p r e s e n t to th e ju ry an y e v id e n c e r e la te d to a n yc o u n t th a t w a s n o t p r o p e r ly be f or e the c ourtorw a s s ubs e que nt l ydi s m i s s e d. T he di stri ctcourtdi d n otabuse i t s di sc re t i on by adm i tt i ng evi dence re l at ed to th e th r e e le g itim a te lo a n s is s u e d to Y e u n g . T h is e v id e n c e w a s in tr o d u c e d to p ro v e k n o w l ed g e, i n t en t , o r m o t i v e, w h i ch are el em en t s o f th e ch arg ed co n sp i racy, an d th e co u rtp ro v i d ed a j u ry i n stru ct i o n t o p rev en tco n fu si o n o f th e i ssu es, i f an y. See F e d . R . E v id . 4 0 2 , 4 0 3 , a n d 4 0 4 ( b ) ; s e e al s o U ni te d State s v . Khan , 993 F . 2d 13 68 , 13 77 –7 8 (9th C i r. 19 93 ). Y eung ’ s c l ai m thatthe go vernm entpres ent ed i nsuffi ci entevi dence of her i nt e ntt o de f

r aud a l s o f

a i l s be c aus e ar e a s onabl e j uryc oul d c onc l ude tha tY e ung i nt ended t o d ef

raud bank s by s ub m i tt i ng fa l se l oan app l i ca t i on s thatm i sr epre se nt ed th e b o rro w ers’ i d en t i t i es, i n co m es, an d asset s. W e a l s o uphol d the w i tne s s t a m pe r i ng c onvi c t i ons . T he di s tr i c tc ourtdi d not ab u s e its d is c r e tio n b y a d m ittin g aw itn e s s ’s la yo p in io n r e g a r d in g h is un ders t andi ng of st at em ent s m ade duri ng a c on vers at i on w i th Y eung , because s uchI n as e pa r a t e opi ni on f i l e d c onc urr e nt l yw i th thi s m e m or a ndum di s pos i t i on, 1 w e va c a t e a nd r e m a nd i n partthe di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s r e s t i tut i on a w a r d. B e c aus e the s e n te n c in g o f

a lle g e d c o - c o n s p ir a to rA le x Y e e d o e s n o t “h a v e ad ir e c t r e la tio n to m att er s a ti ss ue, ” U

ni ted Stat es exre l. R ob i nson R an cher i a C i t i ze ns C ou nci l

v. B orne o, I

nc . , 97 1 F . 2d 24 4, 24 8 (9th C i r. 19 92 ) ( i nt ernal qu ot at i on m arks om i tt ed), w e deny Y eung ’ s r equestfor j ud i ci al no t i ce . 3 t e s t i m ony w a s r a t i ona l l y ba s e d on the pe r c e pt i on of the w i tne s s and he l pf

ul t o the j ury , f ore xa m pl e by c l a r i f

y i ng tha tthe na m e “ A unt i e ” r e f e rr e d t o J udy Y e ung, a nd “s tu f f in H o n g K o n g ” r e f

e rr e d to th e H an g S e n g B a n ka c c o u n t le tte r . See Fe d . R. E v id . 7 0 1 . A d d itio n a lly , th e ju ry in s tru c tio n s ’ d e f in itio n o f “c o rru p t p e r s u a s io n ” is f u llyc o n s is te n t w ith o u rc a s e la w , se e U n i ted S ta tes v. D o ss , 630 F . 3d 1181, 11 89 –9 0 (9th C i r. 20 11 ), and there i s s uffi ci entevi dence i n the re cord fr om w hi ch ar a t i ona l j ur orc oul d ha ve c onc l ude d tha tY e ung a f f i rm a t i ve l yi ns truc t e d Z ha ng a n d L o u ie to lie to la w e n f o r c e m e n t. Y eu n g ’ s co n v i ct i o n i s A FFI R M ED . 1