Mgrdichian
United States v. Mgrdichian
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM **
1. The district court did not err when it denied defendants’ proposed reasonable repair instruction, since that affirmative defense was not fairly raised by the evidence presented at trial. See United States v. Wofford, 122 F.3d 787, 789 (9th Cir.1997).
2. The district court’s special instruction regarding the inapplicability of the statutory exceptions did not prejudice Gerard Mgrdichian’s defense when considered in light of the remaining instructions given. See United States v. Stapleton, 293 F.3d 1111,1114 (9th Cir.2002).
3. Since there was no instructional error, Gerard Mgrdichian’s cumulative error ar *760 gument fails. See United States v. Romero, 282 F.3d 683, 690 (9th Cir.2002).
4. There was sufficient evidence to sustain Gerard Mgrdichian’s conviction for violations of 18 U.S.C. § 511 (a) because, “viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution,” a reasonable juror “could have found beyond a reasonable doubt” that he tampered with VIN numbers. See United States v. Garcia-Paz, 282 F.3d 1212, 1217 (9th Cir.2002) (citation omitted).
5. There was sufficient proof of Joanne Mgrdichian’s connection to the underlying conspiracy because her…