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. TR AC Y C HANG, De fe nda n t-Appe l la

nt. No. 17-10250

D.C . No. 3:15-c r-00067-W HO-1
M EM O R ANDUM *

UNITED STATES OF AM ER IC A,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lle e , v. HOW ARD HSU,

De fe nda n t-Appe l la

nt. No. 17-10256

D.C . No. 3:15-c r-00067-W HO-2

Appe a ls from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Northe rn Distric t of C a lifornia W illia m Horsle y Orric k, Distric t Judge , Pre siding 

# FIL ED
JUL 12 2018 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U

. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t 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.Subm itte d July 9, 2018 ** San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : GR

AB E R and TALLM AN, C irc uit Judge s, a nd LEM ELLE, * ** Distric t Judge
. De fe nda

nts Tra c y C ha ng a nd Howa rd Hsu we re c onvic te d of se v e ra l taxfraud re late d offe nse s. The y a p pe a l the ir c onvic tions a

nd se n te nc e s on se ve ra l grounds. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 18 U.S.C . § 3742 a nd 28 U.S.C . § 1291, a

nd
we a ffirm
. 1. The distric t c ourt did not err in its rulings on De fe nda nts’ m otion to suppre ss. Se e Unite d State s v. R uc ke s , 586 F.3d 713, 716 (9th C ir. 2009) (sta ting sta nda rd of re vie w for m otions to suppre ss). First, thec o urt c orre c tly c onc l ude d that Hsu la c ks Fourth Am e ndm e nt sta nding to c ha lle nge the se arc h of C h ang’ s house
. Se e Unite d State s v. $40,955.00 in U.S. C urre nc y , 554 F.3d 752, 757–58 (9th C ir. 2009) (holding tha t a n a dult who did not live

with he r pare nts la c k e d Fourth Am e ndm e n t

sta nding to c ha lle nge a

se arc h of the ir house de s pite the fa c t that she " ha d fre e a c c e ss a

nd a ke y to the house . . . [a

nd] store d ite m s in [a ] sa fe " that wa s ope n e d during these arc h). Se c ond, be c a use the se arc h wa

rra nt lim ite d the

* * 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. Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).

* * * The Honora

ble Ivan L.R . Le m e lle , Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the Ea ste rn Distric t of Louisia na , sitting by

de signa tion. 2ite m s tha

t c ould be se iz e d to thosere late d to a spe c ific tim e pe riod, it wa s not a

" ge ne ra l" wa

rra n t re quiring total suppre s sion. Se e Unite d Stat e s v. Kow, 58 F.3d 423, 427 (9th C ir. 1995) (holding tha t a wa rra nt wa s de fe c tive be c a

use , am ong othe r shortc om ings, it " did not lim it the sc ope of the se i z ure to a tim e fra m e within whic h the suspe c t e d c rim ina l a c tivity took pla c e " ). The distric t c ourt c orre c tly
c onc lude d tha

t the ove rbroa d portions of the wa rra nt we re se ve ra

ble and re quire d only pa rtia l suppre ssion. Se e Unite d Stat e s v. SDI Future He a lth, Inc ., 568 F.3d 684, 707 (9th C ir. 2009) (holding tha t pa rtia l suppre ssion wa s a

p propria te whe re

" the l ion’ s sha

re of the [warrant] did not viola te the Fourth Am e n dm e nt" ); Unite d Sta t e s v. Kow, 58 F.3d 423, 427 (9th C ir. 1995) (holding tha t a wa rra nt wa s de fe c tive be c a

use , am o ng othe r shortc o m ings, it " did not lim it the sc ope of the
se iz ure to a

tim e fra m e within whic h the suspe c te d c rim ina l a c tivity took pla c e " ). Fina lly , we a gre e with the distric t c ourt tha t the a ffidavit submi tte d to obta in the
warra n t provide d the judge with a substa ntia l ba sis to c onc lude tha t the re wa s proba b le c a use to se arc h C ha

ng’ s house , inc luding a

ny c om p ute rs found the re . Unite d State s v. Gourde , 440 F.3d 1065, 1069 (9th C ir. 2006) (e n ba nc ). 2. W e re je c t De fe nda

nts’ c ha lle nge s to the jury instruc tions. Theinstruc tion on filing a

fa lse ta x re turn inc lude d

e ve ry e le m e n t of the c rim e , a

nd the distric t
c ourt did not a

buse its disc re t ion by

inc luding the" filing" e le m e n t a long with the
3" knowle dge of fa lsity " e le m e nt in a single pa ra gra ph. Se e Unite d State s v. Thurnhube r, 572 F.2d 1307, 1309 (9th C ir. 1977) (" W hile . . . it would pe rha ps have be e n be tte r for the tria l c ourt to ha ve give n a

se pa ra t e instruc tion pa rtic u la riz ing the e le m e nt of m a te ria lity , we c a nnot sa y tha t the instruc tions we re
m isle a ding whe n vie we d a s a whole ." ). The " a iding a

nd a dvising" instruc tion, re a d
a s a whole , " fa i rly

and a d e quate ly

c ove re d the e le m e nts" of the offe nse , Unite d Sta t e s v. Jinia

n, 725 F.3d 954, 965 (9th C ir. 2013), a nd the distric t c ourt did not
a buse i ts disc re tion by

de ny i n g Hsu’ s re que st to a lte r the instruc tion, Unite d State s v. Ke y se r, 704 F.3d 631, 641–42 (9th C ir. 2012). Fina l ly , De fe nda nts we re not
e ntitle d to e ithe r a

" good fa i th" or a

" re l ia nc e " instruc tion, be c a

use the c ourt instruc te d the jury

tha t it c ould c onvic t De fe nda nts only if it found tha

t the y " kne w fe de ra l tax la

wim pose d a duty on [the m ] , a

nd the [y ] inte ntiona lly and volunta rily viola te d tha t duty ." Se e Unite d State s v. Sa rno, 73 F.3d 1470, 1487–88 (9th C ir. 1995) (holding tha

t a de fe n da nt is not e ntitle d to e i the r a good-fa ith or a

re lia nc e instruc tion whe re an a de quate instruc tion on spe c ific inte nt is give n ). 3. R e vie wing de novo, Unite d State s v. Pa ng, 362 F.3d 1187, 1193 (9th C ir. 2004), we c onc lude tha

t the re wa s ne ithe r a

c onstruc tive am e ndm e n t to, nor a fa ta l
va rianc e from , the indic tm e n t . The Gove rnm e nt’ s the ory of the c a se , both in the indic tm e nt a

nd at tria l, wa s tha

t De fe nda n ts ove rstate d or inve nte d de duc tions in
4orde r to a

void pa y ing ta xe s. Although the

Gove rnm e nt introduc e d e vide nc e tha t De fe nda nts hid a sse ts from

the i r a c c o unta

nts, ne i the r the Gove rnm e nt nor the jury instruc tions invite d the jury to c onvic t De fe n da

nts for tha

t c onduc t. Se e Unite d Sta t e s v. C arlson, 616 F.2d 446, 447–48 (9th C ir. 1980) (finding a c onstruc tive
am e ndm e nt of the indic tm e nt whe re " [t] he instruc tions a s give n . . . pe rm itte d the pe tit jury to find a

ppe lla nt guilty . . . ba se d upon m isc onduc t othe r tha n that upon whic h the grand jury

ba se d its c ha

rge " and the Gove rnm e nt " invite d . . . [the jury ] to find a ppe lla nt guilty by re a son of suc h m isc onduc t [during its] . . . c losing sta te m e nt" ). 4. Eve n a ssum ing tha

t C ha ng ha s pre s e rve d he r c ha lle nge to the a dm ission of c e rta in sta

te m e nts tha

t she m a de to a ge nts during the e xe c ution of these arc h
warra n t at he r house , we c o nc lude tha t he r c ha lle nge is unpe rsua sive . Eithe r C ha ng wa s not in c ustody

or, if she wa s in c u stody , she wa ive d he r M iranda

rights. Eithe r way , he r sta

te m e n ts a re a dm issible unde r the Fifth Am e ndm e nt. Se e He rnande z v. Holla

n d, 750 F.3d 843, 853 (9th C ir. 2014) (noting tha t volunte e re d sta te m e nts m a de by a

de fe nda nt a re a dm issible ); Unite d State s v. Va lle jo, 237 F.3d 1008, 1014 (9th C ir. 2001) (noting tha t " a c o nfe ssion obtaine d during a c u s todia l inte rroga tion [is] a dm issible [] " if the de fe nda n t wa ive d he r M iranda

rights). And C ha ng’ s de te ntion wa s pe rm issible unde r the Fourth Am e ndm e nt a s a de te ntion
5inc i de nt to thee xe c u t ion of a se arc h wa

rra nt, so he r state m e nts a

re not the fruits of
an unla wful se iz ure . B a i le y

v. Unite d State s , 568 U.S. 186, 193 (2013). 5. R e vie wing de novo, we re je c t De fe nda

nts’ B ra d y c la im . Se e Unite d Sta t e s v. Pric e , 566 F.3d 900, 907 (9th C ir. 2009) (sta ting sta nda rd of re v ie w). Eve n a ssum ing tha

t the Gove rnm e n t should ha ve turne d ove r re da c te d

c opie s of the thousa nds of ta x re turns pre pa

re d by De fe n da nts’ a c c ounta

nts for othe r c lie nts during the re le va

nt y e ars, we are c onfide nt tha t the re is no re a sona

ble proba bility that the e vide nc e would ha

ve c h ange d the outc om e of the tria l. Se e id. a t 911 (disc ussing theha

rm l e ssne ss sta

nda rd for B ra dy

c la im s). 6. De fe nda

nts’ argum e nt tha

t the y are e ntitle d to a

ne w tria l be c a

use of
a lle ge dly im prope r stat e m e nts m a de by the prose c u tor fa ils. The sta t e m e nts
re fe re n c e d by

De fe nda n ts we re not im

prope r. 7. The distric t c ourt did not c le arly e rr in c a lc u lating the am ount of ta x loss. Se e Unite d State s v. Sta

rge l l, 738 F.3d 1018, 1024 (9th C ir. 2013) (sta ting the sta nda rd of re vie w). The c a lc ulation of ta x loss is alwa

y s " h y pothe tic a l" in the
se nse tha t , be c a use the ta xe s we re not a c tua lly pa id, it m

u st be de te rm ine d wha

t should ha ve be e n pa id. The C a lifornia ta x loss in this c a se wa s " h y pothe tic a l" only in tha t se nse , and the distric t c ourt did not err in inc luding it in its ta x -loss

6c a lc ulat ion. Se e Unite d State s v. Yip, 592 F.3d 1035, 1038–39 (9th C ir. 2010) (holding tha

t tax loss m ay

inc lude unpa id sta

te ta xe s). AFFIRM E D.

7