United States of America v. Harjit Bhambra

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
HARJIT BHAMBRA,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 11-10580
D.C. No. 3:09-cr-01088-SI-1
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Susan Illston, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 15, 2013**
San Francisco, California
Before: TASHIMA, GRABER, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Defendant appeals his convictions, secured in two separate trials, for
immigration fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1001(a), 1015(a), 1425(a), and tax
fraud, in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7206(1), (2). We affirm.
FILED
JAN 18 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2
1. Defendant’s acquittal on one of the immigration-related charges does not
mean that there was insufficient evidence to support his convictions for the other
immigration-related offenses. See United States v. Johnson, 804 F.2d 1078, 1083
(9th Cir. 1986) ("The fact that a jury verdict of guilty on one count of an
indictment is logically incompatible with a verdict of not guilty on another count
does not warrant reversal of the conviction."). The question is whether, viewing
the evidence in the light most favorable to the government, any rational trier of fact
could have found, beyond a reasonable doubt, the essential elements of the crimes
of which the jury convicted Defendant. Id. (citing Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S.
307, 319 (1979)). Here, ample testimonial and documentary evidence supported
Defendant’s convictions.
2. We reject Defendant’s argument with respect to the tax-related offenses
for the same reasons. Consistency of the verdicts is not required, and there was
ample documentary and testimonial evidence to support Defendant’s tax-related
convictions under the Jackson standard.
3. The admission, in the tax trial, of testimony about Defendant’s
submission of a false vehicle registration was not reversible error. Even assuming
that the district court erred, "[t]his court reverses for nonconstitutional errors in
admitting evidence only if it is more probable than not that the erroneous

-- 2 of 3 --

3
admission of the evidence materially affected the jurors’ verdict." United States v.
Arambula-Ruiz, 987 F.2d 599, 605 (9th Cir. 1993) (internal quotation marks
omitted). Here, the jury acquitted Defendant of the charge to which the challenged
testimony was directed, and the evidence that supported the charges of conviction
was overwhelming. Thus, any error that may have occurred was harmless.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --