Schneider

MEMORANDUM ***

Paul Schneider appeals his conviction for committing theft of government property, 18 U.S.C. § 641 , and Social Security fraud, 42 U.S.C. § 408 . Schneider argues that there was insufficient evidence to support the jury’s finding of guilt and that the district court erred by denying his motion for acquittal. When a defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence, we *6 ask whether no rational trier of fact could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the government. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 , 99 S.Ct. 2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979). We apply the same standard in reviewing a district court’s denial of a motion for acquittal. United States v. Tipton, 56 F.3d 1009, 1012 (9th Cir.1995).

A rational trier of fact could very well have concluded that Schneider was guilty of government theft and Social Security fraud. Schneider signed several forms acknowledging that he was obliged to report to the government when he returned to work. As an employee of the Social Security Administration, Schneider received extensive training on the obligations imposed on recipients of disability…

dissenting.

Because I cannot distinguish this case from United States v. Cortes, 299 F.3d 1030, 1037-39 (9th Cir.2002), I dissent. I would vacate the sentence and remand for reconsideration of whether Schneider should receive the benefit of Guideline section 3E1.1, see Application Notes 1(a), (c), (d), (e), and (f), and if not, to allow the district court to make a clear statement of reasons as required by Cortes .