United States v. Elaine Martin

MEMORANDUM

Elaine Martin appeals her convictions for fraud offenses related to her participation in government programs designed to benefit disadvantaged businesses. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We affirm.

1. The district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting expert testimony about the requirements of the government programs. See United States v. McFall, 558 F.3d 951, 960 (9th Cir.2009). Moreover, we see no merit to Martin’s arguments that there was structural error or a due process violation as a result of the challenged evidence ruling. The expert testimony was introduced to show materiality, i.e., how, based on the rules govern ing the programs, particular statements— or misstatements — would tend to influence administrators’ decisions. Materiality is a question of fact, United States v. Gaudin, 515 U.S. 506, 514 , 115 S.Ct. 2310 , 182 L.Ed.2d 444 (1995), and government experts often testify about how government programs work and what statements influence administrators’, decisions, see, e.g., United States v. Peterson, 538 F.3d 1064, 1068, 1073 (9th Cir.2008) (HUD official testifying as expert that the government relied on information submitted by…