Flarida

MEMORANDUM *

Robert James Flarida appeals his jury conviction and 121-month sentence for mail fraud, 18 U.S.C. § 1341 , wire fraud, 18 U.S.C. § 1343 , and money laundering, 18 U.S.C. § 1956 (a)(1)(A)(i), arising out of his role in a telemarketing scheme that targeted elderly individuals. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

Flarida first argues that the district court erred by instructing the jury that no specific statements or omissions were necessary to support a finding of a “scheme to defraud.” In a published opinion concerning Flarida’s co-defendants, we rejected an identical argument. See United States v. Woods, 335 F.3d 993, 998-1000 (9th Cir.2003) (holding that the materiality element of the mail and wire fraud offenses does not require proof of a specific false statement or a specific omission, and that the fraudulent nature of a scheme to defraud is measured by non-technical standards). Following Woods , we hold that the district court did not err in instructing the jury.

Next, Flarida alleges that the district court erred by taking judicial notice of a Federal Trade Commission regulation — the Telemarketing Sales Rule at 16 C.F.R. §§…