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

` l UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, N0. 06-10710
D.C. N0. CR-03-01098-I -EHC _
Plaintiff- Appellee,
. v.
J UDGMEINT
J EANETTE WILCHER,
Defendant- Appellant. _
A Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona
(Phoenix).
A This cause came 0n t0 be heard on the Transcript 0f the Record from the
United States District Court for the District of Arizona (Phoenix) and was duly
submitted. p · i
On consideration whereof, it is now hire ordered and adjudged by this
Court, that the judgment ofthe said District Court in this cause be, and hereby is
AFFIRM ED.
Filed and entered 08/29/07
l
A more cow
<:Ari—w A. cmreiesow -
- Clerk of Court
Arresr
SEP 2 1 200:* .
bvxf
. Dent on rk
Case 2:03-cr-01098-EHC Document 304 Filed O9/21/2007 Pa§e"1“"6fl”"`"`

NOT FOR PUBLICATION _
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS D
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT Aug 29 2007
cArn-w A. CATTERSON cn.ERK
us. mum OF APPEALS
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 06-10710
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. N0. CR—03-01098-1-EHC
v.
MEMORANDUM"
J EANETTE WTLCHER,
Defendant — Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Earl H. Carroll, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted August 14, 2007** I
San Francisco, California
Before: SILERM, 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
if This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not
precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
`"' This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without
oral argument. Eg Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
M The Honorable Eugene E. Siler, Jr., Senior United States Circuit
Judge for the Sixth Circuit, sitting by designation.
Case 2:03-cr-01098-EHC Document 304 Filed O9/21/2007 Page 2 of 4

in violation of 18 U.S.C. § l956(a)(l)(A)(i), and money laundering—transacting in
property derived from unlawful activity in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1957.
Wilcher’s convictions arose out ofa fraudulent investment scheme in which a
group of intermediaries convinced the victim to "invest" $ 3.3 million in a high
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
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,
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 2:03-cr-01098-EHC Document 304 Filed O9/21/2007 Page 3 of 4

such violation for harmless error. Q. 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 ofthe governn1ent’s case,
including the clear bank account and money wire records evidence. l
The jury instructions accurately tracked the wire fraud statute, and were not
coniiising. 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.
AF F IRMED.
- A TRUE @0Pv
<:Ati—tv A. CATTERSON
Clerk Of Court
ATTEST
SEP 2 1 2007
t:>y,_,s _....n
Wpji mtynfierk
Case 2:03-cr-01098-EHC Document 304 Filed O9/21/2007 Page 4 of 4

Case 2:03-cr-01098-EHC

Document 304

Filed 09/21/2007

Page 1 of 4

Case 2:03-cr-01098-EHC

Document 304

Filed 09/21/2007

Page 2 of 4

Case 2:03-cr-01098-EHC

Document 304

Filed 09/21/2007

Page 3 of 4

Case 2:03-cr-01098-EHC

Document 304

Filed 09/21/2007

Page 4 of 4