United States v. Yu Chunchai

MEMORANDUM

Yu was found guilty of bribing a public official and trafficking in counterfeit goods. She argues that (1) the district court’s instructions were confusing and misleading; (2) there was insufficient evidence that she knew her merchandise was likely to be confused with authentic items; (3) the district court erred in calculating the infringement amount based on the retail value of the infringed goods; (4) the sentence was substantively unreasonable; and (5) the community service condition of supervised release was unreasonable. We affirm.

Even if Yu did not forfeit her right to object to the jointly-proposed jury instruction, there was no plain error. See United States v. Perez, 116 F.3d 840, 845 (9th Cir.1997). Under 18 U.S.C. § 2320 (a)(1), the government must prove that the defendant intentionally dealt in goods and that he knowingly used a counterfeit mark. See S.Rep. No. 98-526, at 11 (1984); United States v. Baker, 807 F.2d 427, 428-9 (5th Cir.1986). The statute does not require that the government prove that the defendant knew that his conduct was illegal or that he knew that the mark was likely to cause confusion. The district court did not commit plain error…