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, Plaintiff - Appe lle e , v. M ILTON LEE VANDEVOR T, AKA Le e Vande vort, AKA Le la

nd W . Va nde vort, De fe nda

nt - Appe lla

nt. No. 11-50454

D.C . No. 2:08-c r-01070-PSG-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 Philip S. Gutierre z , Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d M ay 6, 2013 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : PAEZ a

nd IKUTA, C irc uit Judge s, a nd SEEB OR G, Distric t Judge
. * * De fe nda nt M ilton Le e Va

nde vort a ppe a ls his c onvic tions a

nd se n te nc e for fa lse oath in ba

nkruptc y (18 U.S.C . § 152(2)), fra udule nt c onc e a l m e nt of a s se ts in ba nkruptc y (18 U.S.C . § 152(1)), a

nd unla wful m one ta

ry transa c tions in c rim ina lly 

# FIL ED
AUG 29 2013 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 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The Honora

ble R ic ha rd Se e borg, Distric t Judge for the U.S. Distric t C ourt for the Northe rn Distric t of C a lifornia , sitting by de signa tion.de rive d prope rty (18 U.S.C . § 1957). W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291,
and we a ffirm

the c onvic tions a

nd se nte n c e . 1. The distric t c ourt did not fail to instruc t the jury on a n e le m e nt of the offe nse . The jury

instruc tions tra c ke d the te xt of 18 U.S.C
. § 152(1), whic h we have he ld is “ quite e a sily

c om pre he n de d.” Unite d State s v . W e inste in , 834 F.2d 1454, 1461 (9th C ir. 1987). M ore ove r, “ the instruc tions a s a whole ” we re not

“ m isle a ding or ina de quat e to guidethe jury ’ s de libe ra tion.” Unite d State s v . Hofus , 598 F.3d 1171, 1174 (2010). The jury wa s instruc te d tha

t it c ould c onvic t only

on inte re s ts tha

t “ be longe d ” to Va

nde vort a nd tha t we re “ in” his “

p rope rty .” W e the re fore c onc lude tha

t the distric t c ourt m a de no e rror be c a use it did not m

issta te
or om it a n e le m e nt of the § 152(1) offe n se . Unite d State s v . Pe te rson , 538 F.3d 1064, 1070 (9th C ir. 2008). Thedistric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion a s to the pre c ise form

ulation of theinstruc tions. Unite d State s v . Pe p p e rs , 697 F.3d 1217, 1220 (9th C ir. 2012), c e rt. de nie d, 133 S. C t. 1477 (2013). 2. The ope rative sta

tute s , 18 U.S.C . § 152 a

nd 11 U.S.C . § 541, a

re not
unc onstitutiona

lly va gue a s a

p p lie d to Va

nde vort. He re , the c a se la wan d le gisla tive history

e sta b l ish tha t the te rm “ e quita ble inte re sts” in 11 U.S.C . § 541 is not im p e rm issibly

va gue be c a

use (a ) C ongre ss inte n de d a ve ry broa d de finition of prope rty in the ba nk ruptc y c onte xt, se e Unite d State s v . W hiting Pools, Inc

. , 462 2U.S. 198, 204-05 (1983); a nd (b) we have re c ogniz e d tha t the “ e q uita ble or le ga l inte re s ts” in the prope rty

of the e sta

te de fine d in 11 U.S.C . § 541 a re “ c re ate d a

nd de fine d by

sta te la w.” W ilson v . Bill Barry

Ente rprise

s, Inc
. , 822 F.2d 859, 861 (9th C ir. 1987) (c iting B utne r v . Unite d State s , 440 U.S. 48, 55 (1979)). In the
re le va nt c onte xt, “ e quita

ble inte re st” is not be y ond the unde rsta nding of a pe rson of ordina ry inte llige nc e . Se eW

e inste in , 834 F.2d a

t 1461. 3. The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion in e xc luding a portion of Vande vort’ s sta

te m e n t from

his Se c tion 341 he a

ring te stim ony . The distric t c ourt
e xc lude d sta

te m e nts “ not offe re d into e vide nc e by the gove rnm e nt a

nd not te stifie d to by de fe nda nt . . . a s ina dm issiblehe a rsay .” Va n d e vort’ s non-se l f-inc ulpa t ory sta te m e nt wa s ina dm issiblehe arsay not subje c t to a n e xc e ption. Unite d State s v . Orte ga , 203 F.3d 675, 682 (9th C ir. 2000) (non-se lf-inc ulpa tory sta te m e nts a re ina d m issiblee ve n if the y

we re m a d e c onte m

pora ne ously with othe r
se lf-inc ulpa

tory sta t e m e nts), h o lding modifie d by Unite d State s v . Larson , 495 F.3d 1094 (9th C ir. 2007). Thesta te m e nt did not e sta

blish Va n de v o rt’ s sta

te of m ind unde r Fe de ra l R

u le of Evide nc e 803(3) be c a use it la c ke d the indic ia

of re lia bility of a pre se nt-se nse im

pre ssion. Unite d State

s v . Pontic e lli , 622 F.2d 985, 991 (9th C ir. 1980), ov e rrule d on othe r grounds by Unite d State

s v . DeBright , 730 F.2d 1255, 1259 (9th C ir. 1984) (e n ba nc ). Furthe r, “ [Fe de ra l R

ule of Evide nc e 106] 3doe s not c om pe l a dm ission of otherwise ina dm issiblehe arsay e vide nc e .” Unite d State s v . C ollic ott , 92 F.3d 973, 983 (9th C ir. 1996) (inte rna l quota tion omitte d). 4. Vande vort a

ppe a ls the 16-le ve l upwa

rd a djustm e nt to his offe nse le ve l ba se d on the inte nde d loss of be twe e n $1 m illion a nd $2.5 million. U.S.S.G. §2B 1.1(b)(1)(I) (2005 ve rsion). Thedistric t c ourt’ s fa c tua l findings were not
c le arly e rrone ous, a

n d re ly ing on thede bts Va nde vort sought to disc

ha rge wa s not
an e rror of la

w. The only issue is the e xte nt of the loss Va nde vort inte nde d to c a

use his
c re d itors. Unde r the Se nte nc ing Guide line s, inte nde d loss is “the pe c unia ry ha rm that wa s inte n de d to re sult from the offe nse ; [inc luding] inte nde d pe c unia ry ha rm that would ha ve be e n im

possibleor unlike ly

to oc c ur.” U.S.S.G. §2B 1.1, Applic at ion Note3(A)(ii) (2005). The distric t c ourt prope rly a pplie d this de finition of inte nde d loss in de t e rm i ning Va nde vort’ s a dvisory se nte nc i ng guide line s ra nge . Vande vort a

rgue s tha t loss should be

lim ite d to theva lue of his c onc e a le d
a sse ts be c a

u se it wa s not possible

for him to ha v e inte n de d loss be y ond tha t va lue
. This a rgum e nt wa s c onside re d a nd re je c te d in Unite d State

s v . Busse ll , 504 F.3d 956, 962 (9th C ir. 2007), whe re we uphe ld the distric t c ourt’ s de te rm ination tha t the i nte nde d loss e qua le d t he am ount of debt sought to be disc ha rge d in the ba nkruptc y be c a use tha t c a lc ulation re fle c te d “ e c onom i c re a l itie s.” That sa m e 4princ iple a

pplie s he re . To pre va il unde r the a buse of disc re tion sta

nda rd, Va nde vort would ha ve to show tha

t the “ e c onom ic re a litie s” of this c a se distinguishe d it from those in Busse ll . This he c a nnot do: the

e vide nc e in this c a se shows tha t his fraudule nt a c tivitie s go be y ond “ sole ly . . . fa iling to disc lose a

c onc e a le d a sse t on the b ankruptc y pe t ition.”Id. AFFIRM E D
.

5