United States v. Grace Canada

facts, we do not recount them here. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291,

and we affirm.

1. Sufficiency of the Evidence

We review a sufficiency of the evidence challenge de novo and must, after

considering “the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, . . .

determine whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements

of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” United States v. Kimbrew, 944 F.3d 810,

813 (9th Cir. 2019) (citation omitted).

To support a wire fraud conviction, the government must show “(1) the

existence of a scheme to defraud; (2) the use of wire, radio, or television to further

the scheme; and (3) a specific intent to defraud.” United States v. Jinian, 725 F.3d

954, 960 (9th Cir. 2013). Viewing the evidence in favor of the prosecution, a

rational jury could have found the above elements met beyond a reasonable doubt.

The evidence indicated Canada knew out-of-state expansion had to be funded

independently by Celerity Global, and that Celerity Education Group’s (“CEG”)

purpose was “inside California.” Canada also helped prepare and submit CEG’s

affirmations that it would comply with all rules regarding the…