United States v. Edward Barry Paront, United States of America v. Patricia Ann Brown

29 F.3d 636 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.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. Edward Barry PARONT, Defendant-Appellant. UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Patricia Ann BROWN, Defendant-Appellant. Nos. 93-10503, 93-10504. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted July 14, 1994. * Decided July 18, 1994. 1 Before: LEAVY and KLEINFELD, Circuit Judges, and VAN SICKLE District Judge. ** 2 MEMORANDUM *** 3 Paront and Brown operated a fraud racket. The victims wanted to borrow money. Paront would charge them a fee, which would be wired to Brown. Brown or Paront would cash the wires at Las Vegas casinos or a grocery store. Paront had told the victims that for their fees, of thousands or tens of thousands of dollars, he would arrange loans to them of money, or use by them of someone else's assets as collateral, in the millions of dollars. In fact, he had no intention of arranging loans or collateral. The communications were…