Georgeson

MEMORANDUM *

Defendant David Georgeson appeals from his conviction for conspiring to commit mail and wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371 . On de novo review, United States v. Zavala-Mendez, 411 F.3d 1116, 1118 (9th Cir.2005), we affirm.

Defendant does not dispute that he conspired to defraud Richard Abarino of money. Defendant does not dispute that he executed a fraudulent deed of trust in order to gain control of the proceeds of a land sale. Finally, he does not dispute that he used the mail and wire systems in order to effectuate that scheme. Instead, Defendant argues that the district court erred by refusing to grant his motion for acquittal because the government failed to prove that the victim had a property interest in the object of the conspiracy—the sale of the Wildernest 28 property—as required under the mail and wire fraud statutes.

Contrary to Defendant’s assertions, the evidence showed that Abarino had a property interest in the proceeds of the sale of the Wildernest 28 property, as the indictment charged. First, Abarino obtained a Judgment from a California state court against Defendant for the entirety of his investment. Second, Abarino obtained a Charging…