Bowman

MEMORANDUM *

David Bowman appeals his conviction and sentence for mail fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1341 . Bowman contends that the district court erred in: (1) admitting evidence of his dealings with Capital Preservation Fund (“CPF”); (2) excluding evidence of his attempt to reinsure the investors in The Kentfield Group, LLC (“TKG”); (3) refusing to give his proposed “good faith” jury instruction; (4) its loss calculation; and (5) imposing two-level increases for supervision and abuse of position of trust. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 18 U.S.C. § 3742 (a), and we affirm.

1. Bowman did not object to the introduction of the CPF evidence at trial; therefore, we review only for plain error. See Johnson v. United States, 520 U.S. 461, 466-67 , 117 S.Ct. 1544 , 137 L.Ed.2d 718 (1997). We conclude that it was not plain error for the district court to admit that evidence. Id. “[Ojther act’ evidence need not meet the requirements of Rule 404(b) when it is ‘inextricably intertwined’ with the evidence concerning the crime with which the defendant was charged.” United States v. Matthews, 240 F.3d 806, 817 (9th Cir.2000) (finding no plain error where evidence…