1

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

AIFANG YE,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 12-10576

D.C. No. 1:12-cr-00009-RVM-2

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the District Court

for the Northern Mariana Islands

Ramona V. Manglona, Chief District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted February 19, 2015

Honolulu, HI

Before: CLIFTON, N.R. SMITH, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.

Aifang Ye appeals her convictions for aiding and abetting the provision of 

false information in a passport application in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1542 and for 

conspiracy to do the same. She argues that there was insufficient evidence to 

support her convictions. We review de novo a defendant’s appeal challenging the 

sufficiency of the evidence. United States v. Bennett, 621 F.3d 1131, 1135 (9th 

 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

FILED

JUL 10 2015

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2

Cir. 2010). We hold that there was sufficient evidence to support the jury’s 

verdicts on both counts.

For the conspiracy conviction, Ye argues that there was insufficient evidence 

to find that Ye and her brother-in-law Zhenyan Cheng entered into an unlawful 

agreement because, she contends, there was no evidence that Ye or Zhenyan knew 

that what they agreed to do was unlawful. Contrary to Ye’s assertions, there was 

sufficient evidence for the jury to find that Ye and Zhenyan agreed to have 

Zhenyan make a statement he knew to be untrue when applying with Ye for a 

passport for Ye’s daughter. Because we hold in our concurrently filed opinion that 

violating § 1542 does not require specific intent, the jury did not need to find that 

either Zhenyan or Ye knew that what they were doing was unlawful. Ye’s 

sufficiency-of-the-evidence arguments challenging the conspiracy conviction 

therefore fail. 

For the aiding and abetting conviction, Ye argues that her conviction should 

be overturned because Zhenyan was acquitted of providing false information in a 

passport application and because there was insufficient evidence to support her

conviction for aiding and abetting the falsification of a passport application.

Ye’s aiding and abetting conviction is not precluded by Zhenyan’s acquittal. 

A jury’s acquittal of the principal on the underlying offense charge does not 

preclude the jury from convicting another defendant for aiding and abetting the 
3

acquitted principal. Standefer v. United States, 447 U.S. 10, 20 (1980). “[I]t is a 

long established principle of law that mere inconsistency of verdicts does not 

require reversal unless there is insufficient evidence to sustain the guilty verdict.” 

United States v. Van Brandy, 726 F.2d 548, 552 (9th Cir. 1984) (citations 

omitted).

1

Moreover, there was sufficient evidence to sustain Ye’s guilty verdict for 

aiding and abetting Zhenyan’s violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1542. As we hold in our 

concurrently filed opinion, a conviction under the first paragraph of § 1542 

requires only that, in applying for a passport, the defendant made a statement the 

defendant knew to be untrue. Contrary to Ye’s contentions, there was sufficient 

evidence that she and Zhenyan knew that the information Zhenyan would provide 

the passport office was false, and that she aided him in providing it. 

AFFIRMED.

 

1 For purposes of Ye’s conspiracy conviction, it also does not matter that the jury 

acquitted Zhenyan of conspiracy and providing false information on a passport 

application. “It is well established that a person may be convicted of conspiring 

with a co-defendant even when the jury acquits that co-defendant of conspiracy.” 

United States v. Ching Tang Lo, 447 F.3d 1212, 1226 (9th Cir. 2006).