Goodin

MEMORANDUM **

A jury convicted Jeffrey Goodin on eleven counts. He appeals his conviction and *518 sentence on the one count that charged violation of the Controlling the Assault of Non-Solicited Pornography and Marketing Act of 2003 (CANSPAM Act), 15 U.S.C. §§ 7701-13 & 18 U.S.C. § 1037 (2006). We affirm.

Although we agree with Goodin that including the “related to” clause in the jury instructions impermissibly expanded the scope of the statute, our review is for plain error because Goodin stipulated to the instruction and failed to object on this basis. United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 731-32 , 113 S.Ct. 1770 , 123 L.Ed.2d 508 (1993); United States v. Peterson, 538 F.3d 1064, 1070-71 (9th Cir.2008); Fed.R.Crim.P. 30(d) & 52(b). He has not shown that the error was plain. See United States v. Turman, 122 F.3d 1167, 1170-71 (9th Cir. 1997). Although Goodin now suggests that the evidence was insufficient, we cannot say that it was. The evidence was sufficient for the jury to conclude that the email was a ‘commercial electronic mail message,’ as that term is defined in 15 U.S.C. § 7702 (2)(A), and that it did not come within the exception for ‘transactional or relationship…