United States v. Thomas H. Hutchens

46 F.3d 1147 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.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. Thomas H. HUTCHENS, Defendant-Appellant. No. 93-30432. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted Sept. 12, 1994. Decided Nov. 10, 1994. Before: BROWNING, WRIGHT, and CANBY, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM * I. 2 The conviction is affirmed. A. 3 The evidence demonstrated Hutchens committed the prior acts and that those acts were similar to the crime with which Hutchens was charged. See United States v. Ayers, 924 F.2d 1468, 1473-74 (9th Cir.1991). The only notable differences between the two schemes were the identities of the "lenders" and the locale of the solicitations. The evidence was highly relevant to demonstrate a common plan or modus operandi of obtaining advance fees for nonexistent loans, as well as to demonstrate Hutchens's knowledge of such a plan. See United States v. Boone, 951 F.2d 1526, 1540 (9th Cir.1991); United States v.…