United States v. Bradley Garner

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION APR 15 2011 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 10-30064 Plaintiff - Appellee, DC CR No. 3:09-5088 BHS-2 v. MEMORANDUM * BRADLEY AG GARNER, Defendant - Appellant. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 10-30165 Plaintiff - Appellee, DC CR No. 3:09-05088 BHS-2 v. BRADLEY AG GARNER, Defendant - Appellant. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 10-30211 Plaintiff - Appellee, DC CR No. 3:09-05088 BHS-2 v. * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. BRADLEY AG GARNER, Defendant - Appellant. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington Benjamin H. Settle, District Judge, Presiding Submitted April 12, 2011 ** Seattle, Washington Before: KLEINFELD, TASHIMA, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges. Bradley Garner appeals the district court’s judgment of conviction and order of restitution. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We remand for amendment of the judgment and presentence investigation report (PSR). We affirm in all other respects. The conviction on Count 1 remains valid because it is supported by the independently valid “money or property” theory. United States v. Pelisamen, No.10-10022, slip op. 5011, 5022 (9th Cir. Apr. 13, 2011). Because the government does not oppose Garner’s request for a limited remand instructing the district court to delete all references to theft of honest services in the judgment and PSR, we grant such relief. ** The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2)(C). 2 The restitution order is proper. Because Garner was convicted of wire fraud and mail fraud, both of which have a “scheme” element, the restitution order correctly encompasses related but uncharged conduct. See Untied States v. Brock- Davis, 504 F.3d 991, 998-99 (9th Cir. 2007); United States v. Grice, 319 F.3d 1174, 1177 (9th Cir. 2003). We REMAND with instructions that the district court amend the judgment and PSR by deleting all references to theft of honest services, 18 U.S.C. § 1346. We AFFIRM in all other respects. 3