United States v. Matthew Hutcheson

MEMORANDUM

Matthew Hutcheson appeals his jury-conviction for and sentence on seventeen counts of wire fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343 . We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

First, Hutcheson argues that the district court erred by excluding documentary evidence of “irrevocable trust receipts” or “ITRs,” which Hutcheson characterizes as “plan assets” that replaced the money he removed from retirement accounts for which he was trustee. Hutcheson contends that the ITRs show that he lacked the intent to defraud the retirement plans because liquid plan assets were simply replaced with temporarily illiquid assets (the ITRs). We disagree. The district court did not abuse its discretion by finding that the ITRs were “somewhat akin to an insurance coverage of some type” and ex-cludable on that basis as irrelevant, “intent to repay” evidence. See United States v. Oren, 893 F.2d 1057, 1062-63 (9th Cir.1990); United States v. Benny, 786 F.2d 1410, 1417 (9th Cir.1986).

Second, Hutcheson argues that there was insufficient evidence to support his wire fraud convictions. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the government, a rational trier of fact…