United States v. Joyce Spoonhunter

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JAN 13 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 13-30236
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 4:13-cr-00020-DLC-1
v.
MEMORANDUM*
L JOYCE TATSEY SPOONHUNTER,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Montana
Dana L. Christensen, Chief District Judge, Presiding
Submitted October 7, 2014**
Portland, Oregon
Before: KOZINSKI, FERNANDEZ, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Joyce Tatsey Spoonhunter appeals her conviction on three counts of wire
fraud. See 18 U.S.C. § 1343. We affirm.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Spoonhunter asserts that the evidence was insufficient to support the guilty
verdict. We disagree. As relevant here, the elements of wire fraud are: “the
existence of a scheme to defraud . . . and . . . specific intent to defraud.” United
States v. Pelisamen, 641 F.3d 399, 409 (9th Cir. 2011); see also Carpenter v.
United States, 484 U.S. 19, 27, 108 S. Ct. 316, 321, 98 L. Ed. 2d 275 (1987).
Spoonhunter directly attacks sufficiency as to the first of these elements and
indirectly attacks sufficiency as to the second. See United States v. Bohonus, 628
F.2d 1167, 1172 (9th Cir. 1980). Our careful review of the record reveals that as to
each charge, “after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the
prosecution, [a] 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, 99 S.
Ct. 2781, 2789, 61 L. Ed. 2d 560 (1979); see also United States v. Nevils, 598 F.3d
1158, 1163–67 (9th Cir. 2010) (en banc). A rational trier of fact of fact could
conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that Spoonhunter concocted a scheme that
induced her victims to send her money with the understanding that she would
thereupon use the funds to secure them spaces at the North American Indian Days
celebration, but that she, in fact, intended to and did keep the funds. See United
States v. Sullivan, 522 F.3d 967, 974 (9th Cir. 2008) (per curiam); United States v.
Omer, 395 F.3d 1087, 1089 (9th Cir. 2005) (per curiam); United States v. Woods,
2
335 F.3d 993, 998–99 (9th Cir. 2003); see also United States v. Treadwell, 593
F.3d 990, 996 (9th Cir. 2010). Spoonhunter’s reliance on the proposition that mere
nondisclosure cannot suffice for a fraud conviction is misplaced because the record
shows she affirmatively represented to all three victims that she would reserve their
spots and that, in reliance on her representations, the victims wired her funds. Cf.
United States v. Dowling, 739 F.2d 1445, 1449 (9th Cir. 1984).
AFFIRMED.
3