United States v. Alvin Florida, Jr. ( 2018 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
JUL 19 2018
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 17-10330
Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 4:14-cr-00582-JD-1
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ALVIN FLORIDA, JR.,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
James Donato, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted July 11, 2018
San Francisco, California
Before: TASHIMA, GRABER, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
A jury convicted Defendant Alvin Florida, Jr., of agreeing to rig bids at
home foreclosure auctions, in violation of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1. The
district court sentenced Defendant to 21 months’ imprisonment followed by a
period of supervised release. We affirm.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
1. The district court did not err in refusing to instruct the jury on multiple
conspiracies. The indictment charged a single overarching agreement, and the
government’s evidence at trial proved the existence of that agreement. No
evidence suggests that Defendant was involved only in other conspiracies and not
in the single overarching conspiracy—as is required to necessitate an instruction on
multiple conspiracies. United States v. Job, 871 F.3d 852, 867 (9th Cir. 2017).
Further, the existence of several manifestations of the conspiracy—i.e., that the
conspiracy involved several auctions for different properties—and of sub-groups
participating in different sales does not mean that there were multiple conspiracies.
United States v. Mincoff, 574 F.3d 1186, 1196 (9th Cir. 2009).
2. The district court did not commit plain error, United States v. Alcantara-
Castillo, 788 F.3d 1186, 1190–91 (9th Cir. 2015), with respect to the government’s
closing arguments. The evidence supports the government’s statements concerning
homeowners and the nature of foreclosure auctions. United States v. Tucker, 641
F.3d 1110, 1120–21 (9th Cir. 2011). Further, the statements, taken in context,
were permissible and not inflammatory. United States v. Polizzi, 801 F.2d 1543,
1558 (9th Cir. 1986).
AFFIRMED.
2