United States v. Edmund Botha

MEMORANDUM

A jury convicted defendant-appellant Edmund C. Botha (“Botha”) of tax evasion, contrary to 26 U.S.C. § 7201 , and the district court sentenced him to 60 months in prison. On appeal, Botha challenges his conviction and sentence. We affirm.

I.

Botha (through counsel) first argues that the district court’s refusal to provide his requested jury instruction regarding “willfulness” deprived him of the ability to argue his theory of defense. We review de novo whether the district court’s instructions adequately presented the defendant’s theory of the case, but review their precise formulation for abuse of discretion. United States v. Stinson, 647 F.3d 1196, 1215 (9th Cir.2011). The instructions were adequate in this case. The district court provided a legally correct definition of the term “willfully,” as well as a “good faith” instruction in substantially the same form Botha requested. The instructions, read together, adequately covered Botha’s defense theory; the district court accordingly did not err in refusing to give the precise instruction Botha requested. See, e.g., United States v. Chen, 933 F.2d 793, 796 (9th Cir.1991). Nor did the court err in failing to instruct…