NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 17 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 14-10251
Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No.
2:12-cr-00004-APG-GWF-23
v.
DAVID RAY CAMEZ, aka Badman, aka MEMORANDUM*
Doctorsex,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Andrew P. Gordon, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted August 10, 2016
San Francisco, California
Before: GRABER and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges, and PETERSON,** District
Judge.
Defendant David Camez timely appeals his convictions and sentence,
following a jury trial, under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations
Act. We affirm.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The Honorable Rosanna Malouf Peterson, United States District Judge
for the Eastern District of Washington, sitting by designation.
1. In a separately filed opinion, we reject Defendant’s challenges
concerning the fact that he was under the age of 18 when he committed certain
acts.
2. Sufficient evidence supports the jury’s finding that Defendant
participated "in the operation or management of the enterprise itself." Reves v.
Ernst & Young, 507 U.S. 170, 185 (1993); see Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307
(1979) (describing the standard for challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence).
Defendant was a "member" of the enterprise; he purchased many items from
several vendors; he sold some items. He also took many actions that concerned the
functioning of the enterprise itself. For example, he left feedback on the quality of
many sellers; he reported one seller who allegedly had defrauded him; he posted
many comments that helped others undertake scams, in effect directing others on
how to carry out the goals of the enterprise more effectively; and he posted an
explanation about one of the enterprise’s rules. Defendant’s involvement greatly
exceeded the involvement of the defendants in Walter v. Drayson, 538 F.3d 1244,
1248 (9th Cir. 2008), Webster v. Omnitrition International, Inc., 79 F.3d 776, 789
(9th Cir. 1996), and Baumer v. Pachl, 8 F.3d 1341, 1344 (9th Cir. 1993).
3. Because the prosecutor did not misstate the evidence, Defendant’s
assertion of prosecutorial misconduct fails.
2
4. Because the far-below-Guidelines sentence was reasonable, the district
court did not abuse its discretion in selecting the sentence.
AFFIRMED.
3