Ripinsky

Ripinsky and Kingston appeal from their convictions and sentences for conspiracy to commit bank fraud, 18 U.S.C. § 371 , bank fraud, 18 U.S.C. § 1344 , wire fraud, 18 U.S.C. § 1343 , and money laundering, 18 U.S.C. § 1957 , as well as the criminal forfeiture of certain assets and orders of restitution. The district court had jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 3231 , and we have jurisdiction to review their convictions and sentences pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3742 and 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . The notices of appeal were filed after sentencing but before judgment had been entered. The notices are timely, however, as they are deemed filed on the date of and after judgment has been entered. See Fed.R.App.P. 4(b) (“[a] notice of appeal filed after the announcement of a decision, sentence, or order — but before entry of the judgment or order — is treated as *1440 filed on the date of and after the entry”). We affirm.

I

The indictment under which Ripinsky and Kingston were convicted alleged that they defrauded Independence Bank of Encino, California, by taking undisclosed finder’s fees in connection with the purchase of real estate properties by six real estate ventures in which they and…