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. M ARK VINC ENT NOR

M AN, AKA M arc us Norm an , AKA Vinc e nt Norm an,

De fe nda n t-Appe l la

nt. No. 17-50379

D.C . No. 2:16-c r-00140-FM O-4 M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia Fe rnando M . Olguin, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d De c e m

be r 6, 2018 ** Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : O’ SC A

N NLAIN a nd IKUTA, C irc uit Judge s, a nd STEEH, *** Distric t Judge . 

# FIL ED JAN 10 2019 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.

* * The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).

* * * The Honora

ble Ge orge C aram

Ste e h III, Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the Ea ste rn Distric t of M ic higa n, sitting by

de signa tion.De fe nda nt M ark Norm an a

ppe a l s his jury

tria l c onvic tion for c onspira c y to c om m it ba nk fra ud in viola

tion of 18 U.S.C . § 1349, a rising out of a fraudule nt sc he m e in whic h c he c ks we re stole n from the m a il, forge d in his na m e , a nd de posite d into his fa

ke busine ss a c c ount. W e a ffirm . 1. Suffic ie nt e vide nc e supporte d De fe nda nt’ s c onvic tion. Vie wing the e vide nc e in the light m o st fa vora ble to the gove rnm e n t, Unite d State s v . N e v ils , 598 F.3d 1158, 1161 (9th C ir. 2010) (e n ba nc ), the e vide nc e wa s suffic ie nt to pe rm it a ra tiona l juror to c o n c lude tha t De fe nda nt wa s a knowing pa

rtic ipa n t in the c onspira c y

to c om m it ba nk fra ud. De fe nda nt c onc e de s the e vide nc e at tria l prove d the e xiste nc e of a c onspira c y

be twe e n c o-de fe n da

nts M ark Ita e v, his wifeYe le na Ita e v , a nd othe rs to c om m it ba nk fra ud. The e vide nc e shows tha t De fe nda nt ha d a knowing c onne c tion to tha t fra udule nt sc he m e . Se e Unite d State s v . More land, 622 F.3d 1147, 1169 (9th C ir. 2010). De fe nda nt ope ne d the fra

udule nt a c c ount in the

nam e of a

none xiste nt busine s s, a

n d the re wa s no le gitim ate inc om e going into the a c c o unt othe r tha n the initia l $100 – no dire c t de posits, no ta x re funds, no c a sh de posits. The de posits we re c ounte rfe it c he c ks stole n from the m a il a

nd forge d to be m a de pa y a b le to him , a

nd him a lone , a nd we re e n dorse d in his na m e only . Surve illa

nc e vide os showe d him

m aking withdra

wa ls of thousa

nds of dolla

rs insidebranc h 2offic e s on thre e oc c a sions. Ea c h tim e he wore a hat a nd at le a st onc e , he wore sungla sse s. He wa s a

room m ate and frie n d of c o-c onspira t or, M ark Ita e v, who de posite d the fra

udule nt c he c k s a

nd m a de num e rous withdra wa ls from ATM m a c hine s using De fe n d ant’ s ATM c ard an d PIN num be r. He wa s stoppe d

with Ita e v on the sa

m e da y tha t $9,300 wa s withdra

wn from his a c c ount a

nd ha d a pproxim ate l y

$4,000 in c a s h on his pe rson a t tha t tim e . He lie d

a bout thesourc e of those funds to thepolic e . Also, De fe nda n t ne ve r c onta c te d the ba

nk at a ny tim e to c o m pla in of fra

udule nt a c tivity , not e v e n whe n the a c c ount wa s c lose d just a fe w m onths a fte r its ope n ing, with a ne gative ba la

n c e of $75,000, whic h

wa s the re sult of non-pa y a ble c ounte rfe it c he c ks, fe e s for ove rdra fts, a nd othe r pe na l tie s. 2. The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion in a dm i tting thete stim ony of Se rge a nt Sha w n Svoboda . His te stim ony m a de it m o re proba

ble tha t De fe nda nt pa rtic i pate d in the c onspira c y be c a use it showe d tha

t he wa s tra

ve ling with a

c oc onspira tor during thetim e of the c onspira c y ; he posse sse d a la rge am ount of c a sh that c ould ha ve be e n obta ine d by

the ba nk fra u d; a nd he a p pe are d to be ly ing a

bout the s ourc e of the c a sh. De fe nda nt ha s not de m onstra

te d tha t the probative va lue of the e vide nc e wa s

“ substa n tia lly outwe ighe d” by

unfa ir pre

j udic e . De fe nda

n t c la im s te stim ony

by Se rge a nt Svoboda wa s pre

judic ia l be c a

use it inc rim inate d

him in a drug tra ffic king 3offe nse . B ut de fe nse c ounse l e lic ite d the te stim ony tha t De fe nda nt wa s a rre ste d for a na rc otic s viola

tion on c ross-e xam ination. Se e Unite d State s v . Mille r , 771 F.2d 1219, 1234 (9th C ir. 1985) (a ppe lla nt c annot c ha lle nge te s tim ony e lic ite d on c rosse xam ination by

de fe nse c ounse l). On dire c t e xam ination, thegove rnm e nt did not e lic it a ny te stim ony re g arding the arre st or the drugs found in De fe nda nt’ s ve hic le . Se rge an t Svoboda ’ s te stim ony did not viola

te the C onfronta

tion C la use . The distric t c o urt pla c e d no limit on c ross-e xam ination, told de fe nse c o unse l he ha d

“ fre e re in,” and the gove rnm e nt ne v e r obje c t e d to a ny te stim ony

on c rosse xam ination. W

he re a witne ss “ is pre s e nt a

t tria l a nd subje c t to unre stric te d

c rosse xam ination,” the de fe nda n t’ s right to c onfronta

t ion is sa tisfie d. Unite d State

s v . Ow e ns , 484 U.S. 554, 560 (1988). 3. C onside ring the jury

instruc tions a s a

whole , Unite d State

s v . Smith , 831 F.3d 1207, 1215 (9th C ir. 2016), a n d a ssum ing Norm an pre se rve d the issue for a ppe a l, the distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion whe n it ga ve a lim i ting instruc tion re ga

rding the we ight to begive n to the ha ndwriting on the

c ounte rfe it c he c ks. The instruc tion told jurors tha t the y “ m ay ” c onside r the ha

ndwriting a

nd signa ture s a s c irc um sta

ntia l e vide nc e of a

n “ a lle ge d c onspira c y ,” but did not sa y that the y “ should” or “ m

u st,” nor did it indic ate tha t the c onspira c y

in fa c t e xiste d. The distric t c ourt c h arge d the jury tha t the y we re to c onside r a l l the e vide nc e of the 4c a se , we re the sole finde r of fa c t, a nd should not be influe nc e d by anything the c ourt m ay have sa id or done , a s the c ourt did not inte n d to sugge st wha

t the ve rdic t should be . Se e Unite d State s v . Grav e nme ir , 121 F.3d 526, 529 (9th C i r. 1997). Jurors a re pre sum e d to follow the ir instruc tions. W e e k s v . Ange lone , 528 U.S. 225, 234 (2000) (c ita

tion omitte d). The jury instruc tions prope rly a ddre s se d the we ight to be give n to the e vide nc e , inc luding theha ndwriting, a

nd prope rly instruc te d the jury a bout how to dete rm ine whe the r De fe n da nt ha d the re quisite knowle dge of the c onspira c y

to be c onvic te d . “ If the instruc tions fa irly and a de quate ly

c ove r the issue s pre se nte d , the distric t c ourt is given substa ntia l la titude in ta iloring jury instruc tions.” U

nite d State

s v . Pe ppe rs , 697 F.3d 1217, 1220 (9th C ir. 2012) (pe r c uriam ) (inte rna l quota

tion m arks a

nd c ita tion omitte d). C onside ring the instruc tions in the ir e ntire ty , the distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion in ta iloring a

lim iting instruc tion a

bout thewe ight to begive n to the ha ndwriting on the c ounte rfe it c h e c ks. AFFIRM E D.

5