Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. John Rowland MILLS, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-02-06
Citations: 592 F. App'x 617
Docket Number: No. 13-10655
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. John Rowland MILLS, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before: TALLMAN and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges, and MURPHY, District Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 592
Pages: 617–618

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. John Rowland MILLS, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 13-10655.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 4, 2015.
Filed Feb. 6, 2015.
Frederick A. Battista, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Phoenix, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Tara Kristine Hoveland, South Lake Tahoe, CA, Defendant-Appellee.
Before: TALLMAN and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges, and MURPHY, District Judge.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
The Honorable Stephen Joseph Mutphy III, District Judge for the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
ORDER
A federal jury found John Rowland Mills guilty of nine counts of violating 18 U.S.C. § 1343 (2012), the federal wire fraud statute. The district court granted Mills's motion for judgment of acquittal on eight of the nine counts, but affirmed as to one count, count fifteen. We address Mills's appeal in a separate memorandum disposition filed contemporaneously with this order.
The government initially filed a cross-appeal, but later withdrew it: "While the United States disagrees with the district court's ruling, it has chosen not to challenge the result in the interest of judicial economy and the strength of its argument presented herein." Letter from John S. Leonardo, AUSA, to Molly Dwyer, Clerk of the Court (Aug. 13, 2014), ECF No. 24. We therefore dismiss the government's cross-appeal.
This order shall serve as the mandate of the court.
DISMISSED.
phis disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.