United States v. Doris Anyanwu

MEMORANDUM

Doris Anyanwu and Hyacinth Udeh appeal convictions resulting from their involvement in a mortgage fraud scheme. Anyanwu also appeals the fine imposed on her at sentencing. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

Both Anyanwu and Udeh argue that there was no evidence of deliberate ignorance and that the district court therefore erred when it provided the jury with a deliberate ignorance instruction. The district court did not abuse its discretion when it provided the instruction because the jury rationally could have found that both Anyanwu and Udeh were deliberately ignorant even if it rejected the government’s evidence of actual knowledge. See United States v. Heredia, 483 F.3d 913, 922 (9th Cir.2007) (en banc).

Anyanwu contends that the deliberate ignorance jury instruction improperly shifted the burden of proof to her by requiring her to disprove deliberate ignorance, and she further contends that this alleged error constituted a due process violation. The deliberate ignorance instruction did not shift the burden of proof to Anyanwu. It merely clarified the circumstances under which the jury was not permitted to find deliberate…