Garro

MEMORANDUM *

Garro appeals his convictions for eight counts of wire fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1343 , six counts of money laundering based on a concealment theory under 18 U.S.C. § 1956 (a)(l)(B)(i), five counts of money laundering based on a promotion theory under 18 U.S.C. § 1956 (a)(l)(A)(i), and one count of tax evasion under 26 U.S.C. § 7201 . We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm the convictions on all counts.

The district court did not err in instructing the jury that a false statement can be a statement “that was made or used with reckless indifference as to whether it was, in fact, true or false.” We have repeatedly held that fraudulent intent may be shown by reckless indifference to the falsity of a statement. United States v. Munoz, 233 F.3d 1117, 1136 (9th Cir.2000). The district court’s jury instruction was a correct statement of law.

Garro requests reversal because the jury instructions were not recorded and transcribed as required by 28 U.S.C. § 753 (b)(1) (1982). Mere failure to transcribe part of a trial, however, “does not require a per se rule of reversal.” United States v. Carrillo, 902 F.2d 1405, 1409 (9th Cir.1990). Garro must…