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,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lle e , v. PAUL WA GNER ,

De fe nda nt-Appe l la

nt. Nos. 13-10419

17-10056 17-10199 D.C . No. 2:10-c r-00399-M M D-GW F-1
M EM O R ANDUM * Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ne v a da M iranda M . Du, Distric t Judge , Pre siding A rgue d a nd Subm itte d

August 16, 2018 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia
B e fore : SC HR OEDER , SILER , ** and GR AB ER , C irc uit Judge s. Pa ul W a gne r a

ppe a ls his c onvic tion a fte r a jury tria l a nd his se nte nc e for
e ight c ounts of ba

nk fra ud, thre e c ounts of wirefra u d, a n d one c ount of c onspira c y 

# FIL ED OCT 03 2018 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 Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The Honora

ble Euge ne E. Sile r, Unite d State s C irc uit Judgefor the U.S. C ourt of Appe a l s for the Sixth C irc uit, sitting by de signa t ion.to c o m

m it ba nk fra u d and wire fra

ud. W e hav e jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C
. § 1291, a nd we a ffirm
. The distric t c ourt prope rly a dm itte d the te stim o ny of Alic ia Ha nna a s la y opinion te stim o ny

unde r Fe de ra l R

ule of Evide nc e 701. Ha

nna ’ s te stim ony

wa s not e xpe rt te s tim ony

be c a u se she e xpre sse d a

n opinion ba se d on he r pe rsona l obse rvations of thele nding pra c tic e s of Am Trust B ank. Se eUnite d State s v . Barragan , 871 F.3d 689, 704 (9th C i r. 2017) (e xpla ining diffe re nc e be twe e n e xpe rt
and la y te stim ony ), c e rt. de nie d , 138 S. C t. 1565 & 1572 (2018). The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion in allowing the gove rnm e nt to pre se nt Ha nna ’ s te stim ony to e sta blish them ate ria lity

of W a gne r’ s fra

udule nt re p re se ntat ions. Se e Unite d State s v . W e lls , 879 F.3d 900, 914 (9th C i r. 2018) (sta t ing sta nda rd of
re vie w); Unite d State

s v . Lindse

y , 850 F.3d 1009, 1011 (9th C ir. 2017) (a ddre ssing
e le m e nts of m ortga ge fra

ud). At se nte nc ing, thedistric t c o urt did not err in c a lc ulating the am ount of loss
and inc re a sing W a gne r’ s ba se offe nse le ve l unde r U.S.S.G. § 2B 1.1(b)(1)(K) (2012). The distric t c ourt did not c le arly e rr in finding tha

t pa ym e nts m a de through c e rta in a c c ounts we re pa rt of W a gne r’ s fra

udule nt sc he m e . Se e Unite d State s v . Starge ll , 738 F.3d 1018, 1024 (9th C ir. 2013) (sta ting sta nda rd of re vie w). The distric t c ourt prope rly c onside re d the s e pa

ym e nts a s re le va

nt c onduc t. Se e
2U.S.S.G. § 1B 1.3(a ); Unite d S t ate s v . Thomse n , 830 F.3d 1049, 1070 (9th C ir. 2016) (sta ting tha t m e thod of c a lc ulating loss is revie we d de novo); U nite d State

s
v . Hahn , 960 F.2d 903, 910 (9th C ir. 1992) (holding tha t sim i la rity and c lose tim ing m ay

re a sona bly sugge st tha

t re pe ate d insta

nc e s of c rim ina l be hav ior
c onstitute a patte rn of c rim ina l c onduc t). Losse s to se c onda ry le nde rs we re re a s ona bly fore se e a ble and prope rly

c ounte d. Se eUnite d State s v . Hy mas , 780 F.3d 1285, 1293 (9th C ir. 2015) (holding tha t distric t c ourt prope rly

c onside re d losse s to suc c e ssor le nde rs); Unite d State s v . Morris , 744 F.3d 1373, 1375 (9th C ir. 2014) (e xpla ining proc e ss for c a lc ulating loss in m ortga ge fra

ud c a se ). The distric t
c ourt did not err in fa iling to subtra c t the am ount of m ortga ge pa y m e nts m a d e prior to fore c losure
. S

e eUnite d State

s v . Zolp , 479 F.3d 715, 719 (9th C ir. 2007) (holding tha

t distric t c ourt ne e d only m ake “ a re a sona ble e stim ate of the loss ba se d
on a va ila b le inform ation” ). The distric t c ourt prope rly inc re a s e d W a gne r’ s offe nse le ve l ba se d on the
num be r of vic tim s unde r U.S.S.G. § 2B 1.1(b)(2)(A)(i) (2012) be c a use the gove rnm e nt prove d losse s to both origina l a n d suc c e ssor le nde rs. Se eHy mas , 780 F.3d at 1293. The distric t c ourt did not err a pply ing a n e nha nc e m e nt for sophistic ate d
m e ans unde r U.S.S.G. § 2B 1.1(b)(10)(C ) be c a use the offe nse s involve d hiding
3kic k

ba c ks a nd m ortga ge pa

ym e nts m a de on be ha lf of stra w buy e rs. Se eUnite d State s v . Thomse n , 830 F.3d 1049, 1073 (9th C i r. 2016) (a ffirm ing sophistic ate d
m e ans e nha

nc e m e nt); Unite d State

s v . J e n nings , 711 F.3d 1144, 1147 (9th C ir. 2013) (e xpla ining tha

t a sophistic ate d m e ans e nha nc e m e nt re quire s a

sc he m e tha

t displa y s a gre ate r le ve l of pla

nning or c onc e a lm e nt tha n the usua l sc he m e ). W a gne r’ s be low-Guide line s se nte n c e wa s not substa ntive ly unre a sona

ble
. Se eUnite d State

s v . Martine

z-Lope z , 864 F.3d 1034, 1043-44 (9th C i r.) (disc ussing de fe re ntia l re vie w of se nte nc i ng de c ision), c e rt. de nie d , 138 S. C t. 523 (2017). The distric t c ourt did not err in de ny ing W a gne r’ s m otion for a ne w tria l be c a use he did not substa

ntia te his a sse rtion tha

t the prose c ution fa ile d to disc lose im pe a c hm e nt e vide nc e . Se eUnite d State s v . Mazzare lla , 784 F.3d 532, 538 (9th C ir. 2015) (se tting forth re quire m e nts for post-trial m otion). W a gne r’ s a s se rtions
re ga rding a fa ilure to disc l ose his tria l c ounse l’ s a lle ge d c onflic t of inte re s t, a

nd
c ounse l’ s ine ffe c tive a s sista nc e , a re m ore a ppropria te ly the subje c t

of a m otion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 2255. Se e Unite d State s v . Hanoum , 33 F.3d 1128, 1130-31 (9th C ir. 1994). AFFIRM E D.

4