NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCTOBER 21 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 13-50493
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 2:12-cr-00734-ABC-1
v.
MEMORANDUM*
TYRONE RICKY FREEMAN,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Audrey B. Collins, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted October 7, 2014
Pasadena, California
Before: TALLMAN, BEA, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Tyrone Freeman appeals his convictions, after jury trial, on four counts of
mail fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1341) and six counts of embezzling the assets of a labor
organization (29 U.S.C. § 501(c)). Freeman also appeals the sentences imposed
for these convictions, as well as the sentence imposed for a separate, unchallenged
conviction for making a false statement to a federally insured bank (18 U.S.C.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
§ 1014). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 18 U.S.C. § 3742.
We affirm.
Sufficient evidence supports Freeman’s convictions. See Jackson v.
Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 318-19 (1979); United States v. Nevils, 598 F.3d 1158,
1163-64 (9th Cir. 2010) (en banc). On Counts 10-11, a rational trier of fact could
have found that the funds Freeman embezzled belonged to Local 6434, which was
a labor organization. Likewise, on Counts 1-8 and 10-11, a rational trier of fact
could have found that Freeman acted with the necessary fraudulent intent. See
United States v. Sullivan, 522 F.3d 967, 974 (9th Cir. 2008) (per curiam).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting draft minutes into
evidence under the business records hearsay exception, Fed. R. Evid. 803(6). The
possibility that the draft minutes contained inaccuracies does not affect their
admissibility. See United States v. Scholl, 166 F.3d 964, 978 (9th Cir. 1999).
The Government did not plainly misstate the evidence during its rebuttal
closing argument. Cf. United States v. Mageno, 762 F.3d 933, 943-44 (9th Cir.
2014). On the contrary, the Government grounded its argument in the evidence
and reasonable inferences from that evidence. See United States v. Gray, 876
F.2d 1411, 1417 (9th Cir. 1989).
The district court did not clearly err in any of its loss calculations at
sentencing. On Counts 1-8 and 10-11, the district court did not clearly err in
2
finding that Freeman was owed no further compensation for his services. See
United States v. Sayakhom, 186 F.3d 928, 946-47 (9th Cir. 1999). On Count 12,
the district court did not clearly err in determining that Freeman caused the
mortgage-related loss sustained by Countrywide Bank, or in determining that this
loss was reasonably foreseeable. See Robers v. United States, 134 S. Ct. 1854,
1859 (2014).
AFFIRMED.
3