United States of America v. EZRI NAMVAR, AKA Ezri Namvar Moghadam

The Honorable Myron H. Bright, Senior Circuit Judge for the Eighth Circuit,*
sitting by designation.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
EZRI NAMVAR, AKA Ezri Namvar
Moghadam,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 11-50447
D.C. No. 2:10-cr-01055-PA-1
Central District of California,
Los Angeles
ORDER
Before: BRIGHT,1 GRABER, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.*
The memorandum disposition filed in this case on November 20, 2012 is
amended by deleting the following text immediately after the word “fraud,” on
page 3, line 14 of the text of the memorandum:
“because so long as “‘a scheme is devised with the intent to defraud,’” it is
immaterial that “there is no misrepresentation of a single existing fact.” United
States v. Woods, 335 F.3d 993, 998 (9th Cir. 2003) (emphasis omitted) (quoting
Lustiger v. United States, 386 F.2d 132, 138 (9th Cir. 1967)).”
FILED
MAR 26 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2
Additionally, the following text, beginning on page 3, line 14 of the
memorandum after the word “fraud,” is added:
“even though the court did not instruct that the jury had to find that a
specific false statement was made. “[T]he government is not required to prove any
particular false statement was made” so long as there is “proof of a scheme or
artifice to defraud, which may or may not involve any specific false statements.”
United States v. Woods, 335 F.3d 993, 999 (9th Cir. 2003) (quoting United States
v. Munoz, 233 F.3d 1117, 1131 (9th Cir. 2000), superseded by statute on other
grounds, 18 U.S.C. § 1341 (emphasis omitted)); see also United States v. Omer,
395 F.3d 1087, 1089 (9th Cir. 2005).”
With the above amendments, the panel has voted to deny Appellant’s
Petition for Rehearing. Judge Bright has recommended denying Appellant’s
Petition for Rehearing En Banc, and Judges Graber and Ikuta have so voted.
The full court has been advised of the Petition for Rehearing En Banc and no
Judge has requested a vote on whether to rehear the matter en banc. Fed. R. App.
P. 35.
The Petition for Rehearing and the Petition for Rehearing En Banc are
DENIED. No further petitions for rehearing and rehearing en banc will be
entertained.

-- 2 of 2 --