Opinion of the Court — United States v. Sharaf

This writing

Type: Opinion of the Court
Filed: Feb. 21, 2002
Case: United States v. Sharaf
Case status: Decided

Source No authoring judge could be established for this writing, either from provider metadata or from the signature line of the court's published opinion. Benchlight shows the gap rather than guessing at an author.

Opening text

The first passage of the document, as extracted by the source provider.

*368 MEMORANDUM * Syed Mohammed Masood Sharaf (“Sha-raf’) appeals from his conviction on ten counts of bank fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1344 , and the sentence imposed by the district court. We affirm in part, vacate in part, and remand for further proceedings. Sharaf first argues that the district court erred by not allowing him to offer a jury instruction regarding his proposed good-faith defense. We review the district court’s ruling de novo because it concerns “whether the instructions given adequately presented the defendant’s theory of the case,” United States v. Munoz, 233 F.3d 1117, 1130 (9th Cir.2000), and we review the formulation of the jury instructions for abuse of discretion. United States v. Hicks, 217 F.3d 1038, 1045 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1037 , 121 S.Ct. 627 , 148 L.Ed.2d 536 (2000). Here, the court’s charge incorporated the crux of Sharafs proffered instruction, including the various scienter elements that the government needed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt to secure a conviction under § 1344. It also defined several key terms, including “knowingly” and “intent to defraud.” Consequently, the district court’s ruling was not in error. Sharaf…

Source Extract supplied by CourtListener. Benchlight does not host the document — read the authoritative text in the court's own PDF.