Young

MEMORANDUM

Defendant-Appellant Richard Young (“Young”) appeals his convictions on several counts. He also challenges five sentencing enhancements applied by the district court. We affirm Young’s convictions and sentence.

1. The government’s evidence at trial did not constructively amend Young’s Second Superseding Indictment. The challenged evidence regarding Global One’s loan agreement repayments was not “distinctly different” from the facts alleged in the indictment, nor did it “substantially alter[ ]” the offense charged in the indictment. United States v. Adamson, 291 F.3d 606, 615 (9th Cir.2002) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also United States v. Wilbur, 674 F.3d 1160, 1177-78 (9th Cir.2012). Quite the opposite: the challenged evidence was offered to prove precisely what was alleged in the indictment, that the representations regarding the repayment of the “loans” were not true. Therefore “[t]here was only ‘one complex of facts’ alleged in the indictment and proved at trial.” United States v. Shipsey, 363 F.3d 962, 974 (9th Cir.2004).

2. To the extent the admission of Martin Mechling’s testimony was errone ous, the error was harmless. GCB Commc’ns, Inc. v. U.S. S.…