Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Bradley Ag GARNER, Defendant-Appellant; United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Bradley Ag Garner, Defendant-Appellant; United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Bradley Ag Garner, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-04-12
Citations: 427 F. App'x 584
Docket Number: Nos. 10-30064, 10-30165, 10-30211
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Bradley Ag GARNER, Defendant-Appellant. United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Bradley Ag Garner, Defendant-Appellant. United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Bradley Ag Garner, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 427
Pages: 584–585

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Bradley Ag GARNER, Defendant-Appellant. United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Bradley Ag Garner, Defendant-Appellant. United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Bradley Ag Garner, Defendant-Appellant.
Nos. 10-30064, 10-30165, 10-30211.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 12, 2011.
Filed April 15, 2011.
Michael Symington Morgan, Helen J. Brunner, Esquire, Brian Werner, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Seattle, WA, David R. Jennings, USTA-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Tacoma, WA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Jason Brett Saunders, Law Offices of Gordon & Saunders, PLLC, Seattle, WA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: KLEINFELD, TASHIMA, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2)(C).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Bradley Garner appeals the district court's judgment of conviction and order of restitution. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We remand for amendment of the judgment and presentence investigation report (PSR). We affirm in all other respects.
The conviction on Count 1 remains valid because it is supported by the independently valid "money or property" theory. United States v. Pelisamen, 641 F.3d 399, 406(9th Cir.2011). Because the government does not oppose Garner's request for a limited remand instructing the district court to delete all references to theft of honest services in the judgment and PSR, we grant such relief.
The restitution order is proper. Because Garner was convicted of wire fraud and mail fraud, both of which have a "scheme" element, the restitution order correctly encompasses related but uncharged conduct. See United States v. Brock-Davis, 504 F.3d 991, 998-99 (9th Cir.2007); United States v. Grice, 319 F.3d 1174, 1177 (9th Cir.2003).
We REMAND with instructions that the district court amend the judgment and PSR by deleting all references to theft of honest services, 18 U.S.C. § 1346. We AFFIRM in all other respects.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.