Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Arianna ROSALES, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-09-12
Citations: 668 F. App'x 799
Docket Number: No. 15-30228
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Arianna ROSALES, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: GOODWIN, SCHROEDER, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 668
Pages: 799–800

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Arianna ROSALES, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 15-30228
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted August 30, 2016 Seattle, Washington
Filed September 12, 2016
Alison L. Gregoire, Assistant U.S. Attorney, DOJ-United States Attorney’s Office, Eastern District of Washington, Spokane, WA, Thomas John Hanlon, Assistant U.S. Attorney, DOJ-USAO, Yakima, WA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Bevan Jerome Maxey, Esquire, Attorney, Maxey Law Offices, PLLC, Spokane, WA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: GOODWIN, SCHROEDER, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Arianna Rosales appeals her jury conviction for conspiracy to steal casino funds in excess of $1000, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371 and 1167(b); theft from a gaming establishment in excess of $1000, in violation of § 1167(b); and theft from a gaming establishment in an amount less than $1000, in violation of § 1167(a). The convictions arose out of a fraudulent scheme in which Rosales kicked back winning proceeds of casino drawings in which she never participated. The scheme was orchestrated by two casino employees.
Rosales contends that the district court should have granted her motion for acquittal or new trial because the evidence was insufficient to establish a single conspiracy. She contends there were multiple conspiracies. Her theory is flawed. Multiple conspiracies require multiple agreements and purposes. United States v. Taren-Palma, 997 F.2d 525, 530 (9th Cir. 1993) (per curiam). Here, the same co-conspirators were involved in the entire scheme and there was one overall agreement. See United States v. Patterson, 819 F.2d 1495, 1502 (9th Cir. 1987).
The evidence of the prior "Hot Seats" promotion was admissible under Fed. R. Evid. 404(b).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.