United States v. Matthew Hutcheson , 603 F. App'x 613 ( 2015 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MAY 15 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 13-30218
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 1:12-cr-00093-WFN-1
v.
MEMORANDUM*
MATTHEW HUTCHESON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Idaho
Wm. Fremming Nielsen, Senior District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted May 7, 2015
Seattle, Washington
Before: GOULD and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges and BLOCK,** Senior District
Judge.
Matthew Hutcheson appeals his jury conviction for and sentence on
seventeen counts of wire fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The Honorable Frederic Block, Senior District Judge for the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of New York, sitting by designation.
First, Hutcheson argues that the district court erred by excluding
documentary evidence of “irrevocable trust receipts” or “ITRs,” which Hutcheson
characterizes as “plan assets” that replaced the money he removed from retirement
accounts for which he was trustee. Hutcheson contends that the ITRs show that he
lacked the intent to defraud the retirement plans because liquid plan assets were
simply replaced with temporarily illiquid assets (the ITRs). We disagree. The
district court did not abuse its discretion by finding that the ITRs were “somewhat
akin to an insurance coverage of some type” and excludable on that basis as
irrelevant, “intent to repay” evidence. See United States v. Oren, 893 F.2d 1057,
1062–63 (9th Cir. 1990); United States v. Benny, 786 F.2d 1410, 1417 (9th Cir.
1986).
Second, Hutcheson argues that there was insufficient evidence to support his
wire fraud convictions. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the
government, a rational trier of fact could have found the elements of wire fraud
beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979). There
is abundant evidence in the record to support his convictions on all counts,
including not only his personal use of investors’ funds to buy or improve his own
property, but also a range of conduct from forged documents and fabricated
2
account balance statements to witness testimony regarding Hutcheson’s misleading
statements about plan participants’ inability to withdraw funds.
Third, Hutcheson argues that his 210-month sentence is substantively
unreasonable. We reject this contention. The total circumstances include, for
example, (1) the large number of vulnerable victims whose retirement funds were
taken; (2) the contrast between Hutcheson’s former reputation as a retirement plan
innovator and his simultaneous looting of funds from such plans for personal use;
(3) the back-dating of the ITRs while Hutcheson was under indictment; and (4)
Hutcheson’s attempt to undermine the integrity of the trial process by publishing a
letter in a newspaper that threatened significant economic harm to the citizens of
Idaho if he were convicted. We conclude that Hutcheson’s sentence was
substantively reasonable. United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 993 (9th Cir.
2008).
AFFIRMED.
3