Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Leigh A. ELLABY, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-06-14
Citations: 234 F. App'x 623
Docket Number: No. 06-50412
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Leigh A. ELLABY, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 234
Pages: 623–624

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Leigh A. ELLABY, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 06-50412.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 5, 2007.
Filed June 14, 2007.
Becky S. Walker, Esq., Bayron Gilchrist, Esq., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Criminal Division, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
James H. Locklin, Esq., Federal Public Defender’s Office, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: LEAVY, RYMER, and T.G. NELSON, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Leigh A. Ellaby appeals from her jury-trial conviction for making a false statement to a government agency, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Ellaby contends that a question on the I-94W visa waiver form she submitted was fundamentally ambiguous, and hence could not be the subject of a prosecution for making a false statement. In light of the context of the question and the extrinsic evidence, we agree with the district court that the question was not fundamentally ambiguous. See United States v. Culliton, 328 F.3d 1074, 1079 (9th Cir.2003) (holding that context and extrinsic evidence are considerations relevant to whether a question on a form is fundamentally ambiguous). Accordingly, the district court did not err when it denied both Ellaby's motion to dismiss the indictment and her motion for judgment of acquittal.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.