Klinger

This appeal requires us to apply to an instructional error the plain error standard of review recently clarified by the Supreme Court’s decision in Johnson v. United States, — U.S. -, 117 S.Ct. 1544 , 137 L.Ed.2d 718 (1997), and this court’s en banc decision in United States v. Perez, 116 F.3d 840 (9th Cir.1997) (en banc). 1 Defendant Benjamin Klinger was convicted of twenty counts of making false statements to a bank in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1014 , three counts of money laundering in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956 (a)(1)(A)(i), five counts of unlawful monetary transactions in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1957 , and one count of mail fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1341 . Klinger raises several challenges to his conviction. For the first time on appeal, he asserts that certain of the counts contained in the indictment were multiplicitous and contends others were duplicitous. He also challenges the district court’s exclusion of a defense witness’s testimony based on that witness’s anticipated assertion of his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. Finally, Klinger challenges the district court’s instruction to the jury as to the definition of “knowingly,” arguing…