United States v. David Ovist

MEMORANDUM

David Ovist appeals his convictions for bank fraud and wire fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1343 and 1344, and the 57 month sentence imposed following his convictions. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 18 U.S.C. § 3742 , and affirm.

1. Before trial, Ovist sought to introduce into evidence civil complaints filed by the Federal Housing Finance Agency, the Securities and Exchange Commission, and the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York alleging fraud by several of the lenders at issue in this case. We generally review evidentiary rulings for abuse of discretion. United States v. Lynch, 437 F.3d 902, 913 (9th Cir.2006) (en banc) (per curiam). However, we review evidentiary rulings that preclude presentation of a defense de novo. United States v. Ross, 206 F.3d 896, 898-99 (9th Cir.2000). A statement is admissible against the prosecution as the statement of a party-opponent when it is published by “the relevant and competent section of the government.” United States v. Van Griffin, 874 F.2d 634, 638 (9th Cir.1989). However, not “every publication of every branch of government of the United States can be treated as a party…