Free Mandate of 9th Circuit - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

Q I i UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 06-10710
D.C. No. CR-03-01098-l-EHC
Plaintiff — Appellee,
V. _
JUDGMENT
JEANETTE WILCHER,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona
(Phoenix). _
This cause came on to be heard on the Transcript of the Record from the
United States District Court for the District of Arizona (Phoenix) and was duly
submitted. p _ A
On consideration whereof, it is now here ordered and adjudged by this
Court, that the judgment of the said District Court in this cause be, and hereby is
AFFIRMED. U
Filed and entered 08/29/07
éA[`\T-IL:/EACFCCT/I:l\"I'ERSON
ctenx or COURTS
Anesr
~t 0cr ua 2007; t ,
byl Depu1yCterk
Case 2:O3—cr—O1098-EHC Document 305 Filed • • • • age 1 of 4 I

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
I I I UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS L E D
I FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT AUG gg gggy
cmuv A CATTERSON cn.ERK
u.s. counr or Appms
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 06-10710 .
Plaintiff- Appellee, D.C. No. CR-03-01098-l-EHC
v.
MEMORANDUM *
J EANETTE WILCHER,
Defendant- Appellant. _
Appeal from the United States District Court I
A for the District of Arizona
Earl H. Carroll, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted August 14, 2007**
San Francisco, California A
Before: SILERW, McKEOWN, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
Jeanette B. Wilcher appeals her jury convictions and sentence for wire fraud
in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343, money laundering—promoting unlawful activity in
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
· except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
. H This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without
oral argument. &e Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
M The Honorable Eugene E. Siler, Jr., Senior United States Circuit A
Judge for the Sixth Circuit, sitting by designation. I
Case 2:O3—cr—O1098-EHC Document 305 Filed 10/O3/2007 Page 2 of 4


violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(1)(A)(i), andmoney laundering——transacting in `
property derived from unlawful activity in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1957.
Wilcher’s convictions arose out of a fraudulent investment scheme in which a
group of intermediaries convinced the victim to "invest" $ 3.3 million in a high j
yield trading program. The money was then wired to Wilcher. In actual fact, there
was no trading program, and the victim lost most of her investment when Wilcher
and others appropriated the victim’s money for their own uses.
On appeal, Wilcher presents three claims: (1) the district court unduly
limited cross-examination of the victim; (2) the jury instructions misstated the O
specific intent requirements of the wire fraud statute; and (3) her 92-month
sentence is unlawful. Since the parties are familiar with the facts underlying each
claim, we do not recite them here. We affirm on all three grounds.
"In reviewing a limitation on the scope of questioning within a given area, -
1 we recognize that trial judges retain wide latitude insofar as the Confrontation
Clause is concerned to impose reasonable limits on such cross-examination based
on concerns about, among other things, harassment, prejudice, confusion of the
issues, the witness’ safety, or interrogation that is repetitive or only marginally
relevant." United States v. Larson, _ F.3d _, 2007 WL 2192256, at *5 (9th Cir.
Aug. 1, 2007) (en banc) (internal quotations and citation omitted). We review any
2
Case 2:O3—cr—O1098-EIfIC Document 305 Filed 10/O3/2007 Page 3 of 4

such violation for harmless error. Ld. at *10. Even assuming the district court
erred in limiting defendant’s cross-examination of the victim, any error was
harmless in light of the testimony elicited from the victim impugning other
government witnesses, and the overall strength of the government’s case, including
the clear bank account and money wire records evidence.
The jury instructions accurately tracked the wire fraud statute, and were not
confusing. No grounds exist to challenge Wilcher’s sentence, which the district _—
court determined after making accurate Guidelines calculations and giving
appropriate consideration to the statutory sentencing factors. ·
AFFIRMED.
A TRUE COPY
CATHY A. CATIERSON
CLERK OF QGURT · .
. ATTEST
3 E E
;0CT 03 2007}
by: --2 g
. Der>uivC¤er1<
Case 2:O3—cr—O1098-EHC Document 305 Filed = e : : · ; ; · ·— e · '

Case 2:03-cr-01098-EHC

Document 305

Filed 10/03/2007

Page 1 of 4

Case 2:03-cr-01098-EHC

Document 305

Filed 10/03/2007

Page 2 of 4

Case 2:03-cr-01098-EHC

Document 305

Filed 10/03/2007

Page 3 of 4

Case 2:03-cr-01098-EHC

Document 305

Filed 10/03/2007

Page 4 of 4