United States v. Mark James Sandoro

976 F.2d 739 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Mark James SANDORO, Defendant-Appellant. No. 90-50511. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted Sept. 15, 1992. * Decided Sept. 17, 1992. Before WIGGINS, KOZINSKI and KLEINFELD, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM ** 2 * Sandoro was convicted under 18 U.S.C. § 1344 for defrauding Wells Fargo Bank through a check kiting scheme. The jury found that Sandoro had written checks on a closed bank account and deposited them into an account in another bank. Sandoro argues the district court should have admitted into evidence a mailgram Sandoro sent to the first bank asserting that he didn't know the status of his account. Appellant's Brief at 11-16. This mailgram, Sandoro argues, was admissible under Fed.R.Evid. 106. 3 Sandoro's mailgram would have normally been inadmissible hearsay. Fed.R.Evid. 801, 802. It's not clear whether Fed.R.Evid. 106 allows the…