United States v. Paula Harris

*218 MEMORANDUM *

Paul Richards, Paula Harris, and Bevan Thomas appeal from the district court’s partial denial of their motion to vacate the guilty verdicts returned on thirty-nine counts, including honest services fraud, money-and-property fraud, money laundering, bribery, extortion, false statement, and perjury in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1346 , 1341, 1956(a)(1), 666(a)(2), 1951, 1001, and 1623. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for resentencing.

1. We affirm the district court’s order vacating the guilty verdicts on counts 10, 11, 35, 36, 37, 38, and 39, because those counts do not allege a bribery or kickback scheme and are thus based on an invalid theory of honest services fraud under Skilling v. United States, — U.S. -, 130 S.Ct. 2896 , 177 L.Ed.2d 619 (2010). We further vacate the guilty verdicts on counts 2, 14, and 15, which the government concedes are not related to a bribery or kickback scheme and thus are also invalid under Skilling .

2. The verdicts on the remaining honest services fraud counts remain valid as to Richards and Thomas, because it is “not open to reasonable doubt that a reasonable jury would have convicted [the defendants]” on a valid…

concurring in part and dissenting in part:

I concur in the disposition in its entirety except for the portion of numbered paragraph 3 that vacates Harris’s conviction on counts 1, 3, 4, 12, and 13. I think the evidence is sufficient to show that Harris knowingly and intentionally aided and abetted the nuisance abatement bribery scheme. The record amply demonstrates that Harris wrote checks to the AGS subcontractors for the actual clean-up work and deposited the weekly checks from Jackson & Associates for AGS’s cut of the proceeds; that she wrote checks from AGS to AMAC for campaign flyers, which was the core of the bribery counts; that she lied about these payments to the grand jury; and that she admitted that she made the payments from AGS to AMAC to ensure that AGS could keep its contract. Harris received hundreds of thousands of dollars as a result of her involvement. For me, this is sufficient to uphold the jury’s verdict.

FILED

NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUL 10 2012

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 10-50476

Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 2:04-cr-01416-RGK-

v.

MEMORANDUM*

PAULA CAMEO HARRIS,

Defendant - Appellant.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 10-50477

Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 2:04-cr-01416-RGK-

v.

PAUL H. RICHARDS, II,

Defendant - Appellant.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 10-50493

Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 2:04-cr-01416-RGK-

v.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. BEVAN ALTEE THOMAS, AKA Seal C,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California R. Gary Klausner, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted June 4, 2012 Pasadena, California

Before: B. FLETCHER, WARDLAW, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

Paul Richards, Paula Harris, and Bevan Thomas appeal from the district

court’s…