Ghilarducci

MEMORANDUM **

These appeals concern schemes to defraud investors orchestrated by appellants August C. Ghilarducei and Harry C. Sweet, Jr. Both appellants challenge their convictions for mail fraud and money laundering; Sweet also challenges his sentence. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm. Because the parties are familiar with the factual and procedural history of this case, we need not recount it here.

I. Sweet’s Claims

A. Jury Instructions

Sweet challenges four aspects of the district court’s jury instructions concerning his good-faith defense. We review de novo whether jury instructions adequately cover the defense’s theory. United States v. Sayakhom, 186 F.3d 928, 939-40 (9th Cir.1999).

Sweet’s first claim concerns the district court’s misreading of one word of the jury instructions. In its oral instruction, the district court stated: “It is also not a defense to charges of mail fraud that the defendant may have been gullible or negligent”; the instruction should have re *500 ferred to the victim instead of the defendant. Sweet did not object to this misreading at trial, so we review for plain error, United States v. McIver, 186 F.3d 1119,…