United States v. David Ball
711 F. App'x 838
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- A multi-defendant conspiracy led by Leon Benzer and lawyer Nancy Quon infiltrated multiple Las Vegas HOAs by recruiting straw purchasers and rigging board elections to divert HOA funds to Benzer’s companies and affiliated attorneys.
- Straw purchasers (e.g., Gillespie) made false mortgage statements about down payments funded by Benzer; boards controlled by conspirators awarded contracts and fees to Benzer-affiliated entities (e.g., Silver Lining, Quon’s firm).
- Defendants convicted or sentenced included Gillespie (conspiracy and wire fraud), Keith Gregory (conspiracy, wire fraud; sentenced), Salvatore Ruvolo (convicted), David Ball (sentenced), and Benzer (pleaded guilty; sentenced and ordered restitution and forfeiture proceedings abandoned).
- On appeal the Ninth Circuit reviewed sufficiency of evidence for convictions, alleged judicial bias, pre-indictment delay, sentencing challenges (Guidelines loss calculation and reasonableness), restitution, and remanded some sentences for resentencing.
- Trial findings included documentary and testimonial evidence: mortgage application misstatements, recruiter charts, emails, scripted board meetings, and payments from Benzer to co-conspirators and attorneys.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for Gillespie’s conspiracy and wire-fraud convictions | Government: evidence (recruiter testimony, chart, mortgage application, wire funding) proved overt acts and intent | Gillespie: lacked intent/insufficient evidence | Affirmed — evidence sufficient for conspiracy and mortgage-based wire fraud |
| Pre-indictment delay (Gillespie) | Gillespie: delay prejudiced witness memory and fairness | Government: no specific non-speculative prejudice shown | Affirmed — no actual, specific prejudice shown; dismissal denied |
| Sufficiency for Gregory’s convictions | Government: Gregory knowingly facilitated scheme (emails, meetings, checks, payments) | Gregory: acted without knowledge or intent to defraud | Affirmed — jury could find knowledge and active participation |
| Judicial misconduct claim (Ruvolo & Gregory) | Defendants: judge’s interruptions/comments showed bias | Government: comments fell within courtroom management; limiting instruction given | Affirmed — no plain error; comments did not show actual bias or require reversal |
| Sentencing reasonableness and Guidelines enhancements (Gregory, Benzer, Ball) | Defendants: sentences excessive, role/minor, victim count and loss amount disputed; parity concerns | Government/district court: Guidelines and §3553(a) factors justified sentences; loss and victim counts support enhancements | Mixed: Gregory’s sentence upheld; Benzer’s and Ball’s sentences vacated and remanded (Benzer for failure to rule on contested loss; Ball for parity tie to Benzer) |
| Restitution (Benzer) | Benzer: HOAs/co-conspirators not MVRA victims; causation and documentation lacking | Government: HOAs were directly harmed when infiltrated; restitution tied to PSR and trial exhibits; tax restitution tied to plea | Affirmed as to restitution — HOAs victims; district court’s reliance on PSR and admission supported amounts; no plain error |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Green, 592 F.3d 1057 (9th Cir.) (defining conspiracy elements)
- United States v. Jinian, 725 F.3d 954 (9th Cir.) (wire-fraud elements)
- United States v. Lindsey, 850 F.3d 1009 (9th Cir.) (mortgage fraud theory supports wire fraud conviction)
- Betterman v. Montana, 136 S. Ct. 1609 (2016) (due process and pre-indictment delay principles)
- United States v. Huntley, 976 F.2d 1287 (9th Cir.) (prejudice standard for delay claims)
- United States v. Scott, 642 F.3d 791 (9th Cir.) (judicial questioning and curing instruction)
- United States v. Emmett, 749 F.3d 817 (9th Cir.) (clarity required for loss computation on the record)
- United States v. Doe, 705 F.3d 1134 (9th Cir.) (Rule 32 rulings must be explicit)
- United States v. Berger, 587 F.3d 1038 (9th Cir.) (loss-amount challenges raise factual and legal disputes)
- United States v. Ameline, 409 F.3d 1073 (9th Cir.) (plain-error standard for resentencing issues)
- United States v. Swor, 728 F.3d 971 (9th Cir.) (proximate cause for restitution under MVRA)
- Solem v. Helm, 463 U.S. 277 (1983) (gross-disproportionality Eighth Amendment test)