United States v. Van Tran
Opinion
Lead Opinion
*599 MEMORANDUM **
Tran’s appeal raises one issue-whether the district court had jurisdiction over the government’s criminal prosecution of him for violation of 18 U.S.C. § § 1348 and 2314. To the extent that Tran’s reply brief may be read to raise an issue as to the sufficiency of the evidence on the issue of whether the wires were used for the purpose of executing the fraudulent schemes, we do not consider it. Dilley v. Gunn, 64 F.3d 1365, 1367 (9th Cir.1995) (this court usually does not consider arguments made for the first time in a reply brief).
Both sections 1343 and 2314 seek to prohibit conduct “in foreign commerce.” Tran argues that since the fraudulent schemes at issue did not occur in the United States, the statutes do not confer jurisdiction upon a court of the United States. Even assuming that Tran is correct that none of the schemes can be considered to have occurred in the United States, we disagree with his argument that this would preclude an exercise of jurisdiction. Neither statute under which Tran was convicted, seeks to punish fraudulent schemes per se. Rather, the statutes criminalize certain conduct connected with fraudulent schemes.