888 F. 2d 130 - United States v. Andreason
888 F2d 130 United States v. Andreason
888 F.2d 130
Unpublished Disposition
NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
John Leslie ANDREASON, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 88-3270.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Aug. 22, 1989.*
Decided Oct. 11, 1989.
Before BROWNING, KOZINSKI, and RYMER, Circuit Judges.
Advertisement
MEMORANDUM*
Reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, a rational trier of fact could have found beyond a reasonable doubt defendant-appellant John L. Andreason committed the essential elements of the offenses defined by 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1014 and 42 U.S.C. Sec. 408(g)(2). See United States v. Weinstein, 834 F.2d 1454, 1460 (9th Cir.1987). John McCormick's testimony constituted sufficient evidence Andreason (1) filled out and signed the credit application for Idaho Bank & Trust and used another's social security number therein and (2) represented the "Ultimate Investment, Inc." report he gave to Westland to be part of his credit application. From the testimony of Virgil Tinker, a reasonable jury could have found the bank had and considered the credit application, credit report and "Ultimate Investments, Inc." report prior to approving the loan, and the false representations in the documents therefore were "material" to the bank's approval.
AFFIRMED except as to the $100 special assessment, which is VACATED.1
The panel finds this case appropriate for submission without argument pursuant to 9th Cir.R. 34-4 and Fed.R.App.P. 34(a)
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir.R. 36-3
This court recently held unconstitutional 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3013, the statute upon which Andreason's special assessment was based. United States v. Munoz-Flores, 863 F.2d 654, 661 (9th Cir.1988); see Shah v. United States, 878 F.2d 1156, 1163 (9th Cir.1989) (issue raised sua sponte on appeal)