Opinion ID: 3052582
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: sufficiency of the evidence

Text: Defendants argue that their convictions must be vacated because there is insufficient evidence as a matter of law to support a conclusion that the source of the down payment was material to HUD’s decision to insure the loan. We disagree.
There is sufficient evidence to support a conviction if, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979).

[4] “A conviction under § 1001 requires the government to prove (1) a statement, (2) falsity, (3) materiality, (4) knowledge, and (5) jurisdiction.” United States v. Atalig, 502 F.3d 1063, 1066 (9th Cir. 2007). “The jury is the finder of fact and is entitled to believe or disbelieve the testimony of the department officials.” United States v. Gaudin, 28 F.3d 943, 950 (9th Cir. 1994) (en banc), aff’d, 515 U.S. 506. Defendants contest only the materiality of the false gift letters and the source of the down payment. We hold that Pham’s testimony could have led a rational trier of fact to conclude that the false gift letters and the source of the down payment were material to HUD. [5] Pham testified that HUD would not insure a loan if the case binder contained a false gift letter. Pham further testified 10504 UNITED STATES v. PETERSON that “we need to know who the donor is and . . . the relationship between the donor and the buyer, and how much the gift was for, and how the money was transferred and where it was from.” A reasonable juror could have concluded that the false statements in the Fisher Gift Letter were material because, had HUD known that the Petersons directly funded the down payment, HUD would not have insured the loan. See United States v. Mayberry, 913 F.2d 719, 723 (9th Cir. 1990) (concluding that the testimony of a HUD administrator that the information at issue was “highly significant in reviewing mortgage insurance applications” was sufficient to establish materiality). Defendants make much of the fact that a non-profit could fund the down payment, and the seller could donate money to the non-profit, arguing that what mattered to HUD was not the source of the down payment, but whether or not it was made. However, this argument ignores Pham’s testimony that HUD’s policies did not permit the seller to gift the money directly to the buyer. The distinction Pham articulated between direct and indirect gifts did not stem from the idiosyncratic predilections of any one approving officer. Rather, the requirements were established rules and regulations of HUD—a clear indication that the statements in the gift letters as to the source of the down payment were predictably capable of influencing HUD’s decisions.5 5 Although Pham recognized that there was a “very good possibility” that the permissible indirect subsidies might implicate many of the same concerns as the forbidden direct seller subsidies, the materiality requirement in false statement cases does not turn on whether the agency’s regulatory distinctions are wise or consistent as a matter of policy; it contains no embedded question of substantive reasonableness. Cf. Tarallo, 380 F.3d at 1190 (rejecting the argument that “materiality” depends on whether a statement is “important to the decision-making process” of a “reasonable person”). UNITED STATES v. PETERSON 10505 Furthermore, it is undisputed that HUD has always prohibited direct gifts from sellers. See Standards for Mortgagor’s Investment in Mortgaged Property, 72 Fed. Reg. 27,048 (May 11, 2007); Sources of Homeowner Downpayment, 64 Fed. Reg. 49,956 (Sept. 14, 1999); HUD Mortgagee Letter 91-9 (1991). In fact, Paul himself recognized that “under the FHA program . . . [he] could not give the buyer his down payment.” [6] As a result, we hold that there was sufficient evidence for a reasonable juror to conclude that the gift letters and the source of the down payment were material to HUD.
Defendants were convicted also of violating 18 U.S.C. § 371, which provides: If two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. 18 U.S.C. § 371. [7] In support of their argument that the evidence was insufficient for their conspiracy convictions, Defendants merely reiterate that the statements made with respect to Count Two were not material. Because sufficient evidence supports the convictions for Count Two and because Defendants raise no other argument with respect to the conspiracy convictions, we hold that sufficient evidence supports the conspiracy convictions.