United States v. Adrienne Frazer , 650 F. App'x 376 ( 2016 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
MAY 17 2016
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 15-10130
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 2:12-cr-01836-GMS-1
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ADRIENNE MARTA FRAZER,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
G. Murray Snow, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 13, 2016**
San Francisco, California
Before: KLEINFELD, IKUTA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Adrienne Marta Frazer appeals her conviction of five counts of making false
claims against the United States. See 18 U.S.C. § 287. We have jurisdiction
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm her conviction and sentence.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Where a defendant failed to raise a proper objection at trial, we review
challenges to jury instructions for plain error. United States v. Liu, 731 F.3d 982,
987 (9th Cir. 2013).
1. The jury instructions did not plainly err with regard to Frazer’s theory of
defense. The jury was instructed that, in order to convict Frazer of making false
claims to the United States, the jury had to find that Frazer knew that the claims
she made were untrue when she made them. This fairly and adequately covered
Frazer’s theory of her defense. See United States v. Dorotich, 900 F.2d 192, 194
(9th Cir. 1990).
2. There was no error in allowing proof in the disjunctive on an indictment in
the conjunctive. Young v. Holder, 697 F.3d 976, 986 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc),
abrogated in part by Moncrieffe v. Holder, 133 S. Ct. 1678 (2013).
AFFIRMED.
2