Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Adrienne Marta FRAZER, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-05-17
Citations: 650 F. App'x 376
Docket Number: No. 15-10130
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Adrienne Marta FRAZER, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: KLEINFELD, IKUTA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 650
Pages: 376–376

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Adrienne Marta FRAZER, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 15-10130.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted May 13, 2016.
Filed May 17, 2016.
Monica N. Edelstein, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Phoenix, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Atmore Baggot, Atmore Baggot Attorney at Law, Apache Junction, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: KLEINFELD, IKUTA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Adrienne Marta Frazer appeals her conviction of five counts of making false claims against the United States. See 18 U.S.C. § 287. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm her conviction and sentence.
Where a defendant failed to raise a proper objection at trial, we review challenges to jury instructions for plain error. United States v. Liu, 731 F.3d 982, 987 (9th Cir.2013).
1. The jury instructions did not plainly err with regard to Frazer's theory of defense. -The jury was instructed that, in order to convict Frazer of making false claims to the United States, the jury had to find that Frazer knew that the claims she made were untrue when she made them. This fairly and adequately covered Frazer's theory of her defense. See United States v. Dorotich, 900 F.2d 192, 194 (9th Cir.1990).
2. There was no error in allowing proof in the disjunctive on an indictment in the conjunctive. Young v. Holder, 697 F.3d 976, 986 (9th Cir.2012) (en banc), abrogated in part by Moncrieffe v. Holder, — U.S. -, 133 S.Ct. 1678, 185 L.Ed.2d 727 (2013).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.