United States of America v. Michael Stefan Prime - CEDAR

More documents

Recommendations

Info

4982 UNITED STATES v. PRIMECOUNSELAnna M. Tolin, Siderius Lonergan & Martin, Seattle, Washington,for the defendant-appellant.Michael T. Sennott, Siderius Lonergan & Martin, Seattle,Washington, for the defendant-appellant.Bruce F. Miyake, Assistant United States Attorney, Seattle,Washington, for the plaintiff-appellee.TROTT, Circuit Judge:OPINIONIOVERVIEWMichael Prime (“Prime”) was charged with, and convictedof, one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud, in violation
UNITED STATES v. PRIMEof 18 U.S.C. § 371; one count of conspiracy to manufacturecounterfeit securities, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371; andthree counts of possessing, manufacturing, and uttering counterfeitsecurities, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 513(a). Primeraises four issues on appeal: 1) whether the district court properlydenied his motion for a Franks hearing; 1 2) whether thecourt abused its discretion in allowing the testimony of anexpert handwriting analyst; 3) whether the court abused itsdiscretion in not allowing Prime to substitute counsel; and 4)whether the jury’s potential exposure to extrinsic evidencewas grounds for a new trial. We have jurisdiction under 28U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm all of the district court’s ordersand decisions.IIBACKGROUND4983Between April and June 2001, Prime, along with three coconspirators,David Hiestand (“Hiestand”), Juan Ore-Lovera,and Jeffrey Hardy, sold non-existent items on eBay, purchaseditems using counterfeit money orders created by thegroup, sold pirated computer software, and stole credit cardnumbers from software purchasers. To facilitate this operation,Prime and his cohorts used a credit card encoder to inputthe stolen data on their own credit cards, set up post officeboxes under false names, manufactured false identifications,and used a filter bank account to hide proceeds of the crimes.1 In order to receive a Franks hearing, the defendant must make a nonconclusoryand “ ‘substantial preliminary showing’ that the affidavit containedactual falsity, and that the falsity either was deliberate or resultedfrom reckless disregard for the truth.” United States v. Chesher, 678 F.2d1353, 1360 (9th Cir. 1982) (citing Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, 171(1978)). There is no evidence that the immaterial inaccuracies containedin the affidavit were either deliberate or made with reckless disregard forthe truth, and thus this issue on appeal is without merit.
Page 1: FOR PUBLICATIONUNITED STATES COURT
Page 5 and 6: admission of expert testimony regar
Page 7 and 8: UNITED STATES v. PRIME4987Following
Page 9: tained its accreditation with the A
Page 12 and 13: 4992 UNITED STATES v. PRIMEmitment
Page 14 and 15: 4994 UNITED STATES v. PRIMEonly con
Page 16 and 17: 4996 UNITED STATES v. PRIME[11] In

United States of America v. Michael Stefan Prime - CEDAR

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?