Moffet

MEMORANDUM ***

Appellant Lester Moffet raises three issues on appeal challenging his conviction and sentence. We affirm.

Moffet argues that the evidence was insufficient to show that he acted with an intent to defraud. He was convicted of passing a false and fictitious instrument under 18 U.S.C. § 514 (a)(2), which by its terms requires an intent to defraud.

The evidence was sufficient. Intent to defraud can be inferred from circumstantial evidence; it need not be specifically admitted or confessed. See United States v. Walls, 577 F.2d 690 , 696 n. 7 (9th Cir.1978). Intent may be inferred from the defendant’s statements and conduct, see United States v. Zemek, 634 F.2d 1159, 1180 (9th Cir.1980), and we have held that the scheme itself can constitute probative circumstantial evidence of an intent to defraud, see United States v. Plache, 913 F.2d 1375, 1381 (9th Cir.1990). In this case, a rational jury could have found the requisite intent beyond a reasonable doubt, based on evidence that Moffet created and presented a totally fictitious and worthless financial document to the car dealership for the purpose of obtaining two vehicles without paying for them, and that he presented…