United States v. Terrylyn McCain , 697 F. App'x 539 ( 2017 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SEP 15 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 15-10404
Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No.
2:12-cr-00144-TLN-1
v.
TERRYLYN MCCAIN, MEMORANDUM*
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Troy L. Nunley, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 13, 2017**
San Francisco, California
Before: SCHROEDER and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges, and WHALEY,***
District Judge.
Terrylyn McCain appeals her jury conviction and sentence for four counts of
mail fraud, four counts of making false claims against the United States, and three
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
***
The Honorable Robert H. Whaley, United States District Judge for the
Eastern District of Washington, sitting by designation.
counts of money laundering designed to conceal the proceeds of her mail fraud,
under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341, 287, and 1956(a)(1)(B)(i), respectively. McCain was
sentenced to 70 months in prison on the fraud and money laundering convictions,
and 60 months in prison on the false claims convictions, to be served concurrently
for a total prison term of 70 months. On appeal, McCain alleges that the district
court erred by failing to give a good-faith jury instruction and by imposing an
unreasonable sentence based on impermissible factors. We have jurisdiction
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
1. The district court did not err in declining to give a good-faith jury
instruction. See United States v. Doe, 705 F.3d 1134, 1143–44 (9th Cir. 2013);
United States v. Stinson, 647 F.3d 1196, 1215 (9th Cir. 2011). McCain represented
herself at trial and produced no evidence to support the requested good-faith
instruction. She gave no opening or closing statement, failed to cross-examine any
witnesses, and put on no defense case. See United States v. Burt, 410 F.3d 1100,
1103 (9th Cir. 2005). And while McCain’s standby counsel submitted a proposed
good-faith jury instruction, McCain repeatedly disavowed standby counsel’s
actions, and neither she nor standby counsel objected to the district court’s
decision. The district court correctly instructed the jury as to specific intent, and
nothing more was required on this record. See United States v. Shipsey, 363 F.3d
962, 967 (9th Cir. 2004).
2
2. The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing a 70-month
prison sentence. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 993 (9th Cir. 2008).
The court properly focused on the nature of McCain’s offense, as well as her past
resistance to federal, state, and local laws. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 3553(a)(1), 3661;
United States v. Christensen, 732 F.3d 1094, 1102 (9th Cir. 2013). The court also
considered the 70-month, within-guideline-range sentence to be necessary to
promote respect for the law. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(A). The district court’s
sentence was procedurally sound and substantively reasonable, and we will not
disturb it on appeal.
AFFIRMED.
3