Yeung

MEMORANDUM

Even assuming there was a variance in proof between the single conspiracy charged in the indictment and the three conspiracies allegedly proved at trial, the variance did not prejudice Yeung’s rights due to evidentiary spillover because Yeung stood trial alone. See United States v. Anguiano, 873 F.2d 1314, 1318 (9th Cir.1989); see also United States v. Liu, 631 F.3d 993, 1000 (9th Cir.2011). Yeung’s reliance on United States v. Lazarenko, 564 F.3d 1026 (9th Cir.2009), which involved retroactive misjoinder, is misplaced, because the government did not present to the jury any evidence related to any count that was not properly before the court or was subsequently dismissed.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by admitting evidence related to the three legitimate loans issued to Yeung. This evidence was introduced to prove knowledge, intent, or motive, which are elements of the charged conspiracy, and the court provided a jury instruction to prevent confusion of the issues, if any. See Fed.R.Evid. 402, 403, and 404(b); see also United States v. Khan, 993 F.2d 1368, 1377-78 (9th Cir.1993).

Yeung’s claim that the government presented insufficient evidence of…