United States v. Goyko Kuburovich, 19-10215

Defendant Goyko Gustav Kuburovich was convicted by a jury of bankruptcy fraud (18 U.S.C. § 157), concealment of assets in bankruptcy (18 U.S.C. § 152(1)), and making a false statement in bankruptcy (18 U.S.C. § 152(3)).
The government presented evidence that Kuburovich repeatedly transferred funds into his daughter’s essentially empty bank accounts, controlled those accounts and the house bought with the funds, and omitted the accounts and house from his bankruptcy petition and statement of financial affairs.
Kuburovich moved to dismiss under the Speedy Trial Act based on multi-month continuances (May–July 2017 and March 2018), alleging prosecutorial bad faith and arguing the continuances were improper.
He moved for acquittal under Rule 29, contending the evidence was insufficient, and alternatively argued the district court should have given a unanimity instruction for counts involving multiple alleged false statements or concealments.
He also sought discovery supporting a claim of vindictive prosecution, alleging the federal case was brought after he prevailed in an unrelated state marijuana prosecution.
The Ninth Circuit affirmed: it upheld the continuances, found the evidence sufficient, held any unanimity error harmless, and rejected the vindictiveness/discovery claim.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Speedy Trial Act continuances	Government: continuances for continuity of counsel and preparation were justified	Kuburovich: delays violated §3161(c)(1); alleged prosecutor bad faith	Court: affirmed continuances; findings of continuity/preparation not clearly erroneous and stipulations bar later challenge
Sufficiency of evidence	Government: transfers, control of accounts/house, and omissions support convictions	Kuburovich: evidence insufficient to prove scheme or false statements	Court: evidence viewed favorably to govt was sufficient for convictions
Jury unanimity instruction	Government: multiple theories supported by evidence; unanimity not required on specific false statement	Kuburovich: court plainly erred by not giving a specific unanimity instruction for Counts 2 & 3	Court: even if error, harmless because sufficient evidence supported each theory
Discovery re: vindictive prosecution	Government: separate sovereign and different facts; no evidence of vindictiveness	Kuburovich: federal charges were vindictive retaliation after state acquittal; sought discovery	Court: denied discovery; claim speculative and weakened by different sovereigns/facts

United States v. Henry, 984 F.3d 1343 (9th Cir. 2021) (standard of review for district court factual findings and ends-of-justice continuances)
United States v. Sutter, 340 F.3d 1022 (9th Cir. 2003) (defendant stipulations to facts underlying excluded time preclude later challenge)
United States v. Rocha, 598 F.3d 1144 (9th Cir. 2010) (standard of review for denial of Rule 29 motions)
United States v. Nevils, 598 F.3d 1158 (9th Cir. 2010) (en banc) (viewing evidence in the light most favorable to prosecution)
United States v. Klinger, 128 F.3d 705 (9th Cir. 1997) (plain-error review for instructional errors)
United States v. McCormick, 72 F.3d 1404 (9th Cir. 1995) (jury consensus on a particular false statement not always required)
United States v. Lyons, 472 F.3d 1055 (9th Cir. 2007) (harmlessness when sufficient evidence supports multiple theories of guilt)
United States v. Brown, 875 F.3d 1235 (9th Cir. 2017) (standards for review of discovery and vindictive prosecution claims)
United States v. Robison, 644 F.2d 1270 (9th Cir. 1981) (different sovereigns and facts weaken vindictiveness claims)

AFFIRMED.