Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Imad Salim HEREIMI, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-09-23
Citations: 396 F. App'x 433
Docket Number: No. 08-30468
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Imad Salim HEREIMI, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: FERNANDEZ, KLEINFELD, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 396
Pages: 433–434

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Imad Salim HEREIMI, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 08-30468.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Sept. 23, 2010.
Retta-Rae Randall, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Anchorage, AK, for Plaintiff-Ap-pellee.
Ted Stepovich, Anchorage, AK, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: FERNANDEZ, KLEINFELD, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
After a jury verdict, the district court issued a judgment of conviction against Hereimi for honest services fraud. We affirmed the district court, but the Supreme Court vacated our decision and remanded "for further consideration in light of Skilling v. United States, 561 U.S.-, [130 S.Ct. 2896, 177 L.Ed.2d 619] (2010)." Having done so, it is apparent to us that this case was tried and argued to the jury solely on the theory of honest services fraud that was rejected in Skilling. See id. at -, 130 S.Ct. at 2931; see also McNally v. United States, 483 U.S. 350, 360, 107 S.Ct. 2875, 2882, 97 L.Ed.2d 292 (1987) (conviction reversed where "there was no charge and the jury was not required to find that the [State] itself was defrauded of any money or property.") Moreover, the jury was instructed and brought in a verdict on that theory alone. Therefore, we reverse the judgment and remand to the district court for further proceedings. See United States v. Moreland, 604 F.3d 1058, 1076-78 (9th Cir. 2010); see also Johnson v. United States, 520 U.S. 461, 468, 117 S.Ct. 1544, 1549, 137 L.Ed.2d 718 (1997) (where at time of trial law "settled and clearly contrary to the law at time of appeal," error still plain); United States v. Hilling, 891 F.2d 205, 206-08 (9th Cir.1989) (when jury instructed on improper intangible right theory, conviction reversed).
REVERSED and REMANDED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.