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 ERIC A, Plaintiff - Appe lle e , v. SAM UEL C OHEN, AKA M ouli C ohe n, De fe nda

nt - Appe lla

nt. No. 12-10240

D.C . No. 3:10-c r-00547-C RB -1 M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Northe rn Distric t of C a lifornia C ha rle s R . B re y e r, Distric t

Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d M ay 8, 2013 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : W . FLETC HER , GOULD, a nd C HR ISTEN, C i rc uit Judge s. Sam ue l C ohe n a

ppe a ls his jury

c onvic t ion a

nd se nte nc e on fifte e n

c ounts of wire fra ud in viola

tion of 18 U.S.C . § 1343, e le ve n c o unts of m one y la unde ring in viola tion of 18 U.S.C . § 1957, a nd thre e c ounts of ta

x e va sion, in viola

tion of 26 U.S.C . § 7201. W e hav e jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291 a nd 18 U.S.C . 

# FIL ED AUG 22 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.§ 3742. W e a ffirm the tria l c ourt in pa rt a nd dismi ss C ohe n’ s ine ffe c tive a s sista nc e of c ounse l c l a im

without pre

judic e . 1 1. C ohe n a

rgue s tha t his trial c ounse l re nde re d ine ffe c tive a ssista nc e by not c onsulting a ha

n dwriting e xpe rt. C la im s of ine ffe c tive a ssista nc e of c o unse l are n ot ge ne ra lly

c onside re d on dire c t a

ppe a l ; we re v ie w the m

only “ whe re the re c o rd is suffic ie ntly de ve lope d to pe rm it re vie w a nd de te rm ination of theissue , or the l e ga l re pre se ntation is so ina de quate tha

t it obviously

de n ie s a de fe nda

nt his Sixth Am e ndm e nt right to c ounse l.” Unite d State s v . Riv e ra-Sanc he

z , 222 F.3d 1057, 1060 (9th C ir. 2000) (inte rna l quota tion m arks om itte d). He re , the le ga l re pre se ntation wa s not so inade quate a s to obviously de ny C ohe n his Sixth Am e ndm e nt right to c ounse l, a n d the re c ord wa s not suffic ie ntly de v e l ope d to pe rm it our re vie w of the spe c ific issue ra ise d by C ohe n. The only

e vide nc e in the re c o rd of tria l c ounse l’ s rationa le for not c onsulting a ha ndwriting e xpe rt wa s c onta ine d in a

n inform a l one -se nte nc e e m a il in whic h tria l c ounse l ga ve an off-the c uff e xpla nation c om

ple te with thedisc la im e r that he wa s “ going from re c a ll” and

“ foc use d e l se whe re . ” The re wa s no e vide ntia ry he aring re g arding c ounse l’ s pe rform a nc e , and the re c ord doe s not re ve a l how m any hours tria l c o unse l spe nt

1 W e a d dre s s C ohe n ’ s c la im tha t the distric t c ourt im

prope rly im pose d a two-le ve l se nte nc ing e nha nc e m e nt unde r U.S. Se nte nc ing Guide line s § 2B 1 .1(b)(9)(A) in a

n opinion file d c onc urre ntly with this disposition. 2pre p aring thec a se or what inve stiga t ive e fforts tria l c o unse l unde rtook. Unde r the s e c irc um sta

nc e s we do not ha

v e e nough e v ide nc e to re vie w the ine ffe c tive ne ss c la im , a nd the c la im

is the re fore dism isse d without pre judic e . Se eUnite d State

s v . Mc G ow a n , 668 F.3d 601, 605-06 (9th C ir. 2012). 2. C ohe n ra ise s a

C onfronta

tion C la use c ha lle nge to the distric t c ourt’ s lim its on C ohe n’ s c ross-e xam ination of Ha ri Dillon. W e re vie w de novo a c ha lle nge ba se d on the e xc lusion of a n a re a of inquiry , but we re vie w the distric t c ourt’ s re stric tions of thesc ope or m anne r of c ross-e xam ination for a buse of disc re tion. Unite d State

s v . Larson , 495 F.3d 1094, 1101 (9th C ir. 2007) (e n ba nc ). The distric t c ourt’ s limita t ion on que stions re ga

rding Dillon’ s unde rsta

nding of le ga l te rm s c onta ine d within his ple a a gre e m e nt re pre se nte d a

m inor limita

tion inte nde d to a

void c onfusing thejury ; it wa s not a n e xc lusion of a

n a re a of inquiry . Se eid. at 1102 (limita

tion on sc ope of c ross-e xam ination re ga rding Gove rnm e nt’ s c oope rat ing witne sse s’ bia se s a nd m o tiva tions to lie

wa s not e x c lusion of a

re a of inquiry). The j ury

he ard e vide nc e that Dillon had e nte re d into a ple a a gre e m e nt and tha t he wa s m otiva

t e d to c oope rate with thegove rnm e nt. The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion by

de te rm ining tha

t a le tte r c onta ining se ve ra l la y e rs of he arsay wa s substa

ntia lly m ore pre judic ia l tha

n proba tive . S e e Unite d State s v . Spe nc e r , 1 F.3d 742, 744 (9th C ir. 1993) (distric t c ourts re c e ive “ ‘ wide latitude ’ ” 3whe n ba la

nc ing pre judic ia l e ffe c t of proffe re d e vide nc e a ga inst its proba tive va lue (c ita tion omitte d)). 3. The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion by

a dm itting e vide nc e a bout C ohe n’ s la

vish life sty le be c a

use a de sc ription of his life s ty le wa s proba tive of the m anne r in whic h

C ohe n c onduc te d his sc he m e and re le va nt to whe the r the m one y he re c e ive d wa s a

n inve stm e nt, a

loa n, or funds hespe nt rathe r tha n funds he inte nde d to re pa

y . B e c a u s e C ohe n’ s we a lth wa s not a dm itte d to e s ta blish m otive , the a

uthoritie s tha

t C o h e n c ite s, U

nite d State

s v . Rome ro-Av ila , 210 F.3d 1017, 1022-23 (9th C ir. 2000); Unite d State s v . Mitc h e ll , 172 F.3d 1104, 1108-09 (9th C ir. 1999), a

re ina pposite . 4. The distric t c ourt did not err by de ny ing C ohe n’ s m otion for a judgm e nt of a c quitta l be c a use the jury

instruc tions we re prope r. C ontra ry to C ohe n’ s a rgum e nt, the gove rnm e nt did not proc e e d on c o-sc he m e r or vic a rious lia bility the orie s; thus, the

jury did not ne e d to be instruc te d in those the orie s. C

f
. Franc is v . Frank

lin , 471 U.S. 307, 313 (1985) (jury c ha rge tha t ha s “ the e ffe c t of re lie ving theStat e of its burde n of pe rsua sion be y ond a re a sona ble doubt of e ve ry e sse ntia l e le m e nt of a

c rim e ” viola

te s due proc e ss); M ode l C rim . Jury Instr. 9th C ir. 8.124 c m

t. (re c om m e nding useof m a il fra

ud m ode l jury instruc tion like , the

4one use d in C ohe n’ s tria l, for wire fra ud). The gove rnm e nt provide d suffic i e nt e vide nc e tha

t C ohe n obta ine d m one y

by fa lse pre t e nse s. 5. C ohe n a

rgue s tha t his c o nvic tions for m one y la un de ring a

nd tax e va sion m

ust be re ve rse d , if the wire fra ud c onvic tions a

re re ve rse d, be c a

use the se c ounts we re de rivative of the wire fra ud c ounts. B e c a

use we a ffirm

the c onvic tions on wire fra

u d, we ne e d not de c ide whe the r the m one y la unde ring a

nd tax e v a sion c ounts we re de rivative of the wire fra ud c ounts. 6. The distric t c ourt’ s se nte nc ing de c ision wa s not there sult of le ga l e rror and wa s not substa

nt ive ly unre a sona

ble . Se eUnite d State

s v . C arty , 520 F.3d 984, 996 (9th C ir. 2008) (e n ba nc ). The distric t c ourt’ s loss findings we re not c le arly e rrone ous but we re inste a d supporte d by a de c la ration sum

m ariz ing the re sults of a

n inve stiga

tion into the

pa pe r tra il le ft by

C o he n’ s fra

ud a s we ll a s tria l te stim ony . The vic tim -loss c a lc ulat ions we re not c l e arly e rrone o us but we re inste a d supporte d by tria l te stim ony and a n IR S a g e nt a ffidav it. Se eUnite d State s v . Pham , 545 F.3d 712, 722 (9th C ir. 2008) (c ounting for re stitution purpose s vic t im s re fle c te d in c o urt’ s a dopte d loss c a lc ulation). “ B e c a use the Guide line s range wa s c orre c tly

c a lc u l ate d, the distric t

c o urt wa s e ntitle d

to re l y on the Guide line s ra

nge in de t e rm ining tha

t the re wa s no ‘ unwa

rrante d dispa

rity ’ be twe e n [C ohe n] and othe r offe n de rs c onvic te d of simila r frauds.” Unite d State

s v . 5Tre adw e ll , 593 F.3d 990, 1011 (9th C ir. 2010). Any e rror by the distric t c ourt in its disc ussion of a study

pre se nte d by

de fe nse c ounse l wa s ha

rm le s s in thec onte xt of the c ourt’ s re a sone d a

na ly sis a nd m id-guide line s se nte n c e . AFFIRM E D in par t and DISM ISSE D w ithout pr e judic e in par t.

6