Opinion ID: 814677
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: The Absence of an Instruction Defining “On or

Text: About” Defendants challenge the absence of an instruction defining “on or about” as used in the second superseding indictment. Although Defendants did not propose an “on or about” instruction at trial, Defendants now argue that such an instruction was needed to provide the jury with “sufficient guidance” to navigate the time frames involved in the charged crimes. Defendants did not object at trial, so we review for plain error. Defendants cite United States v. McCown, 711 F.2d 1441, 1450–51 (9th Cir. 1983), and United States v. ZepedaMartinez, 470 F.3d 909, 912 n.1 (9th Cir. 2006), but those cases are inapposite. They concern challenges to crimes charged during allegedly open-ended or indefinite time frames. In this case, the dates alleged are not indefinite. The RICO conspiracy was alleged to have begun in 1991 with the improper foreign currency exchange speculation that resulted in unlawful use of the Bank of China’s interbranch accounts and to have ended with the arrests of Chaofan and Kuang in 2004. The conspiracies alleged in counts two and three began in 1998 and ended with the same arrests in 2004. Counts four 42 UNITED STATES V . XU through fifteen allege that the various acts of immigration fraud occurred on specific dates. Defendants do not argue that the government presented evidence outside the dates outlined in the indictment or otherwise deviated from the time frames alleged in the indictment. Accordingly, we find no error. G. Defendants’ Incomprehensibility Claims Due to Numerous Chinese Names Presented to the Jury Defendants challenge the fairness of the proceedings based on the numerous Chinese names before the jury. Defendants argue that the names are essentially interchangeable and incomprehensible to any juror who is not familiar with Chinese, thus rendering the charging process incomprehensible. Plain error review applies because no objection was made at trial.11 We are not persuaded by Defendants’ argument. The parties engaged in voir dire, which included a jury questionnaire inquiring about any prospective bias or difficulty with the fact that the defendants were Chinese. Several interpreters were present during trial. The district court also took steps to clarify the names and roles of the parties by placing on display in the courtroom a chart with the faces and names of all relevant persons. Furthermore, Defendants point to no specific evidence of prejudice warranting reversal on these grounds. 11 Defendants allege that they preserved this claim of error during the jury instructions hearing. The colloquy, however, dealt only with the jury instructions in general and did not reference the Chinese language issues specifically enough to preserve the issue for appeal. See United States v. Klinger, 128 F.3d 705, 711–12 (9th Cir. 1997). UNITED STATES V . XU 43 In sum, Defendants’ seven challenges to the jury instructions are meritless.