United States v. Guy Williams

Ninth Circuit

United States v. Guy Williams

613 F. App'x 658

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedAugust 24, 2015

Docket13-10523, 13-10529

StatusUnpublished

This text of 613 F. App'x 658 (United States v. Guy Williams) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

United States v. Guy Williams, 613 F. App'x 658 (9th Cir. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Guy Williams and his father Brent Williams (collectively “Defendants”) appeal their jury convictions for conspiracy to *659 commit mail fraud and/or wire fraud, two counts of mail fraud, thirteen counts of wire fraud, and twenty-two counts of transactional money laundering. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 1349, 1341, 1343, 1957(a). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

1. Under our caselaw interpreting the intent element of mail fraud, the district court did not abuse its discretion by excluding evidence of post-conspiracy collection efforts of Mathon Fund’s defaulted loans (or evidence that the Defendants personally attempted to collect on any defaulted loans at no cost to their victims). See United States v. Benny, 786 F.2d 1410, 1417 (9th Cir.1986) (“While an honest, good-faith belief in the truth of the misrepresentations may negate intent to defraud, a good-faith belief that the victim will be repaid and will sustain no loss is no defense at all.”); see also United States v. Treadwell, 593 F.3d 990, 995-99 (9th Cir.2010). Because the district court’s eviden-tiary ruling was well within its discretion, “we reject [Defendants’] attempts to ‘con-stitutionalize’ [their] claims.... Simply put, [Defendants] cannot transform the exclusion of this evidence into constitutional error by arguing that [they were] deprived of [their] right to present a defense.” United States v. Waters, 627 F.3d 345, 353-54 (9th Cir.2010) (internal quotation marks omitted).

2. The record before us is insufficient to reach the merits of Defendants’ ineffective assistance of counsel claim. See United States v. Rahman, 642 F.3d 1257, 1259-60 (9th Cir.2011). To the extent Defendants may have a colorable claim for ineffective assistance of counsel, they may pursue it in a petition for habeas corpus.

AFFIRMED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MEMORANDUM **

Guy Williams and his father Brent Williams (collectively “Defendants”) appeal their jury convictions for conspiracy to *659 commit mail fraud and/or wire fraud, two counts of mail fraud, thirteen counts of wire fraud, and twenty-two counts of transactional money laundering. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 1349, 1341, 1343, 1957(a). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

1. Under our caselaw interpreting the intent element of mail fraud, the district court did not abuse its discretion by excluding evidence of post-conspiracy collection efforts of Mathon Fund’s defaulted loans (or evidence that the Defendants personally attempted to collect on any defaulted loans at no cost to their victims). See United States v. Benny, 786 F.2d 1410, 1417 (9th Cir.1986) (“While an honest, good-faith belief in the truth of the misrepresentations may negate intent to defraud, a good-faith belief that the victim will be repaid and will sustain no loss is no defense at all.”); see also United States v. Treadwell, 593 F.3d 990, 995-99 (9th Cir.2010). Because the district court’s eviden-tiary ruling was well within its discretion, “we reject [Defendants’] attempts to ‘con-stitutionalize’ [their] claims.... Simply put, [Defendants] cannot transform the exclusion of this evidence into constitutional error by arguing that [they were] deprived of [their] right to present a defense.” United States v. Waters, 627 F.3d 345, 353-54 (9th Cir.2010) (internal quotation marks omitted).

2. The record before us is insufficient to reach the merits of Defendants’ ineffective assistance of counsel claim. See United States v. Rahman, 642 F.3d 1257, 1259-60 (9th Cir.2011). To the extent Defendants may have a colorable claim for ineffective assistance of counsel, they may pursue it in a petition for habeas corpus.

AFFIRMED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

613 F. App'x 658, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-guy-williams-ca9-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack