United States v. Rizk, 660 F.3d 1125

Rizk, a licensed real estate appraiser in Orange County, participated in a mortgage fraud scheme with Mark Abrams and Charles Fitzgerald that caused lenders to fund inflated loans.
The scheme involved falsified contracts, inflated appraisals, and manipulation of sale prices and comparables to conceal true values, resulting in over $46 million in losses to lenders.
Before trial, the government admitted 96 summarized real estate transactions via two charts under FRE 1006, listing actual vs reported prices, loan amounts, commissions, and appraisers.
Rizk was named on 39 of the 96 transactions, but evidence at trial showed she prepared appraisals for all 96 transactions, including records bearing her name or later matching submitted appraisals.
Rizk argued she acted in good faith and was misled by others, but the jury convicted her on one count of conspiracy, one count of bank fraud, and thirteen counts of loan fraud.
The district court ordered restitution totaling $46,515,846, not offset by a prior civil settlement where lenders released claims in exchange for insurer payment, and Rizk challenging the restitution amount on appeal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Rule 1006 charts were admissible	Government asserts charts properly summarize voluminous records and were admissible	Rizk contends charts were overbroad and prejudicial	Charts admissible; underlying records admissible and available for inspection
Whether charts fall within Rule 404(b) as 'other acts'	Charts show the full scope of the conspiracy, not ‘other acts’	Charts include properties not named in indictment and appraisals not bearing Rizk's name	Charts were not Rule 404(b) evidence; they were inextricably intertwined with the conspiracy
Whether Rule 403 prejudice undermines admissibility	Limited instructions and relevance justify admission	Charts are unfairly prejudicial by implying Rizk inflated all appraisals	No plain error; charts not unfairly prejudicial given probative value and defense access to underlying records
Sufficiency of evidence for knowledge of conspiracy and intent	Evidence shows Rizk knew appraisals were used to obtain loans and aided the scheme	Rizk lacked knowledge of the conspiracy and acted in good faith	Rational jury could find knowledge of the conspiracy and intent to defraud for conspiracy, bank fraud, and loan fraud
Restitution amount vs. prior civil settlement under MVRA	MVRA requires full restitution to victims regardless of settlements	Prior settlement releases claims; restitution should not exceed actual losses	Restitution must be reduced by the insurer payment; remand for corrected order

United States v. Soliman, 813 F.2d 277 (9th Cir. 1987) (scope of Rule 404(b) and summary evidence)
United States v. Lillard, 354 F.3d 850 (9th Cir. 2003) (inextricably intertwined acts not Rule 404(b))
Montgomery v. United States, 384 F.3d 1050 (9th Cir. 2004) (summary exhibits outlining conspiracy scope and no undue prejudice)
United States v. Edwards, 595 F.3d 1004 (9th Cir. 2010) (MVRA restitution and prior settlements interaction)
Cloud v. United States, 872 F.2d 846 (9th Cir. 1989) (criminal restitution cannot be waived by civil settlements)
Davis & Cox v. Summa Corp., 751 F.2d 1507 (9th Cir. 1985) (purpose of Rule 1006 summaries)
Northrop Corp. v. Triad Int'l Mktg. S.A., 842 F.2d 1154 (9th Cir. 1988) (rule governing summaries and admissibility)