United States v. Christopher Blauvelt
680 F. App'x 578
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- Defendants David Pritchard and Christopher Blauvelt were convicted after a jury trial of mail fraud, wire fraud, and selling unregistered securities; this is their appeal to the Ninth Circuit.
- The government’s case focused on a scheme involving Gigapix/OZ3D investments in which defendants made material misrepresentations and omissions to obtain investor funds.
- Evidence showed Pritchard knew telemarketers made false statements, personally misled investors via calls/meetings/newsletters, and was aware of regulatory cease-and-desist orders indicating unregistered securities.
- Blauvelt’s role included participation in the sales; he joined in some of Pritchard’s restitution arguments at sentencing.
- The district court denied or limited continuances for both defendants; multiple evidentiary rulings and government closing statements were challenged on appeal.
- The Ninth Circuit affirmed most convictions and rulings but vacated and remanded the restitution orders because of an unexplained $6 million disparity between defendants’ restitution amounts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for fraud and unregistered securities | Gov: evidence shows intent to defraud, knowing participation, and willful sale of unregistered securities | Pritchard/Blauvelt: challenged sufficiency | Held: Affirmed — evidence more than adequate to support convictions (intent, misrepresentations, knowledge of unregistered sales) |
| Denial/limitation of continuances | Gov: district court acted within discretion given discovery volume and scheduling concerns | Pritchard: needed more time to locate exculpatory documents; Blauvelt: sought one-day continuance | Held: Affirmed — no abuse of discretion; defendants failed to show likely benefit or prejudice |
| Evidentiary rulings, closing argument, and trial conduct fairness | Gov: rulings and arguments were proper or at most inadvertent; court conduct did not show partiality | Defs: leading questions, lay opinion, prejudicial evidence/adverse courtroom conduct and prosecutorial misconduct in closing | Held: Affirmed — no reversible error or plain error; cumulative conduct did not create unfair trial |
| Restitution calculation and unequal awards | Gov: forensic accountant used a reliable method to calculate victim loss | Defs: challenged accuracy and unequal awards (Blauvelt received $6M more than Pritchard) | Held: Vacated and remanded — restitution orders must be explained or adjusted to justify the disparity |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Pelisamen, 641 F.3d 399 (9th Cir. 2011) (sufficiency standard for convictions)
- United States v. Sullivan, 522 F.3d 967 (9th Cir. 2008) (intent and knowing participation in fraud)
- United States v. Flynt, 756 F.2d 1352 (9th Cir. 1985) (continuance standard)
- United States v. Wilkes, 662 F.3d 524 (9th Cir. 2011) (continuance/prejudice standard)
- United States v. Archdale, 229 F.3d 861 (9th Cir. 2000) (trial court discretion on leading questions)
- United States v. Simas, 937 F.2d 459 (9th Cir. 1991) (lay opinion testimony analysis)
- United States v. Ramirez, 537 F.3d 1075 (9th Cir. 2008) (evidentiary rulings scope)
- United States v. Lloyd, 807 F.3d 1128 (9th Cir. 2015) (prosecutorial statements and inadvertent mistakes)
- United States v. Marks, 530 F.3d 799 (9th Cir. 2008) (judicial conduct and appearance of partiality)
- United States v. Scott, 642 F.3d 791 (9th Cir. 2011) (cumulative-error and fairness standard)
- United States v. McGowan, 668 F.3d 601 (9th Cir. 2012) (reserving ineffective-assistance claims for collateral review)
- United States v. Mancuso, 718 F.3d 780 (9th Cir. 2013) (constructive amendment doctrine)
- United States v. Bhagat, 436 F.3d 1140 (9th Cir. 2006) (material variance doctrine)
- United States v. Hickey, 580 F.3d 922 (9th Cir. 2009) (honest belief in success is not a defense to fraud)
- United States v. Thomsen, 830 F.3d 1049 (9th Cir. 2016) (restitution in mail/wire fraud cases)
- United States v. Waknine, 543 F.3d 546 (9th Cir. 2008) (government’s burden to prove actual loss for restitution)