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. YUZEF YUNOSOVIC H AB R AM OV, a ka Yuz e f Abram ov,

De fe nda nt-Appe l la

nt. No. 16-50104

D.C . No. 2:14-c r-00241-ODW -1
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 Otis D. W

right II, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d M arc h 6, 2018; Re subm i tte d Oc tobe r 31, 2018

Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : GR

AB E R , W . FLETC HER , a nd OW ENS, C irc uit Judge s. De fe nda nt Yuz e f Abram ov a

ppe a ls his c onvic tion on fivec ounts of
e nga ging in illic i t se xua l c onduc t in fore ign pla c e s , in viola tion of 18 U.S.C
. § 2423(c ) (2009). W e a ffirm
. 

# F IL ED NOV 07 2018 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, 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 36-3.1. De fe nda nt first a rgue s tha t the distric t c ourt e rre d by de ny ing his motion to dismiss theindic tm e nt. W e re vie w tha t ruling denovo. 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). De fe nda nt a rgue s tha t t he sta tute doe s not a

p ply to his c onduc t be c a

use , e ve n though heis a

Unite d State s c itiz e n, he re side d a nd wa s dom ic ile d in R

ussia and thus did not " trave l[] " to R ussia , 18 U.S.C . § 2423(c ) (2009). Se e Unite d State s v. Pe pe , 895 F.3d 675, 687–90 (9th C ir. 2018) (de s c ribing thec orre c t inte rpre tation of the sta tute ). Whe n we vie w the fa c ts in thelight most fa vora ble to the gove rnm e nt, Uba ldo, 859 F.3d a t 701, there c o rd doe s not be ar out tha t
c ha ra c te riz ation. 1 De fe nda

nt re side d in Los Ange le s, whe re he ha d a drive r’ s lic e nse and whe re his c hildre n a nd e x-wife live d . Inde e d, De fe nda nt a sse rte d in a 2013 le tte r to his m e m

b e r of C o ngre ss tha

t, though he

ha s " visite d " R

u ssia se ve ra l tim e s, he ha s be e n a

pe rm ane nt re side nt of Los Ange le s sinc e 2000, a nd the
c ha rge d c onduc t took pla c e se ve ra l y e ars a fte r that. De fe nda nt tra ve le d to R

ussia

1 De fe nda nt a rgue s tha t, whe n gra

nting a post-ve rdic t a c quitta l on his c onvic tion unde r 18 U.S.C . § 2423(b), whic h c rim ina liz e s a c itiz e n ’ s tra

ve l in fore ign c om

m e rc e for the purpose of e nga ging in illic i t se xua l c onduc t , the distric t c ourt " found" tha

t De fe nda nt live d in R

u ssia . W e disa gre e . The distric t c ourt, in this jury tria l , m a de no fa c tua l findings. R athe r, the c ourt c am e to a

le ga l c onc lusion tha

t the re wa s insuffic ie nt e vide nc e for a jury to find in the gove rnm e nt’ s favor on thedism isse d c ount. And the re a son why

the c ourt c am e to that c onc l usion a

ppe ars to be tha

t ha ving se xwith c hildre n wa s not the pre d om ina

nt re a son for De fe n da

nt’ s trips to R

ussia
. 2from

C a lifornia

be fore e a c h of the c ha

rge d a c ts, whic h took pla c e soon a fte r his
arriva l in R

ussia , and the n re turne d

to C a lifornia

a fte r e a c h of the c ha

rge d a c ts. 2 2. W e re vie wfor a

b u se of disc re tion thedistric t c o urt’ s de nia l of De fe nda nt’ s m o tion to substitute

c o unse l, Unite d State s v. R e y e s-B o sque , 596 F.3d 1017, 1033 (9th C ir. 2010), a n d find none . The c ourt c onduc te d a n e vide ntia

ry he aring c onc e rning De fe nda nt’ s re que st a

nd pe rm issibly

c onc lude d tha

t the disc ord be twe e n De fe nda

nt a n d his c ounse l did not a

m ount to a c om

ple te bre akdown of
c om m unic ations but, ra

the r, arose from

De fe nda nt’ s de s ire for de la

y and his disa gre e m e nt with c ounse l’ s c hose n tria l stra te gy . The c ourt pe rm issibly
c onc lude d tha

t c ounse l c ould providean a de q uate de fe nse . 3. B e c a use we a ffirm

the c onvic tions, wene e d not c onside r the re m a ining issue
. AFFIRM E D.

2 Unlike the de fe nda

nt in Pe pe , De fe nda

nt doe s not c ha lle nge on a ppe a l the jury instruc tions a

t his trial. Ac c ordingly , De fe nda nt ha s wa ive d or forfe ite d any c la im of e rrone ous jury

instruc t ions. Unite d State s v. Pe re z -Silva n, 861 F.3d 935, 938 (9th C i r. 2017). 3