NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
AUG 24 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 13-10523
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 2:09-cr-01492-ROS
v.
MEMORANDUM*
GUY ANDREW WILLIAMS,
Defendant - Appellant.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 13-10529
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 2:09-cr-01492-ROS
v.
BRENT F. WILLIAMS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Jack Zouhary, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted August 11, 2015
San Francisco, California
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Before: KOZINSKI and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges, and PIERSOL,** Senior
District Judge.
Guy Williams and his father Brent Williams (collectively “Defendants”)
appeal their jury convictions for conspiracy to 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 evidentiary ruling was
well within its discretion, “we reject [Defendants’] attempts to ‘constitutionalize’
**
The Honorable Lawrence L. Piersol, Senior District Judge for the U.S.
District Court for the District of South Dakota, sitting by designation.
2
[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.
3