United States v. Van Trease

MEMORANDUM **

Nicole Van Trease (“Van Trease”) appeals her conviction and sentence for conspiracy, health care theft and bank fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2 , 371, 669 & 1344. We affirm.

Because Van Trease did not object to the jury instructions, move for acquittal, or object to the sentencing enhancements of which she now complains, her claims are reviewed for plain error. United States v. *459 Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 731-32 , 113 S.Ct. 1770 , 123 L.Ed.2d 508 (1993).

Van Trease contends there was insufficient evidence that she embezzled or stole money from her employer, Nevada Pacific Dental, Inc. (“Nevada Pacific”), within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 669 . Although styled as a challenge to sufficiency of the evidence, Van Trease seems to be actually challenging the way the district court defined the elements of § 669 in the jury instructions. Van Trease argues that “steals” in § 669 is the equivalent of common law larceny and that there was insufficient evidence of its required element, trespass.

However, “steals” is not a term of art with an accepted common law meaning, United States v. Maloney, 607 F.2d 222, 229 (9th Cir.1979), and is generally broader than larceny,…