United States of America v. Juan C. Tenorio

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JUAN C. TENORIO,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 09-10022
D.C. No. 1:07-cr-00078-1
MEMORANDUM*
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
CHARLENE F. TENORIO,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 09-10023
D.C. No. 1:07-cr-00078-2
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Guam
Frances Tydingco-Gatewood, Chief District Judge, Presiding
FILED
APR 14 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 4 --

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
*** The Honorable Ricardo S. Martinez, United States District Judge for
the Western District of Washington, sitting by designation.
2
Submitted April 12, 2010 **
San Francisco, California
Before: NOONAN and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges, and MARTINEZ, District
Judge.***
Juan and Charlene Tenorio appeal from their convictions for bankruptcy
fraud. They argue that there was insufficient evidence to support the jury’s
determinations that certain accounts receivable belonged to the bankruptcy estate
and that Charlene had the intent to fraudulently conceal interests in insurance
policies. We have jurisdiction over these appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and
we affirm their convictions.
Where, as here, a motion for acquittal is denied, we review de novo
“whether sufficient evidence exists to support a guilty verdict.” United States v.
Stewart, 420 F.3d 1007, 1014 (9th Cir. 2005). We further noted that “[i]n
reviewing for sufficiency of the evidence, we assess the evidence in the light most
favorable to the prosecution, determining whether any rational trier of fact could
have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id. at
1014-15 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).

-- 2 of 4 --

1 Because the parties are familiar with the facts and procedural history,
we do not restate them here except as necessary to explain our decision.
3
We determine that there was substantial evidence to support the jury’s
determination that monthly payments were made by or on behalf of Hong Kong
Entertainment (Overseas) Investment Limited to Juan and that he did not list them
in either his corporate or personal bankruptcy petitions. 1 These payments should
have been revealed to the bankruptcy court. See 11 U.S.C. § 541(a)(1). There was
evidence that Juan used some of these payments to make payments on a personal
bank loan. Moreover, evidence that Juan opened a bank account in his mother’s
name and directed that the payments be made to that account support the
determination that he intended to conceal the payments.
The insurance policies also should have been revealed to the bankruptcy
court. See 11 U.S.C. § 541(a)(1). There was evidence that Charlene handled the
household’s finances, paid the insurance premiums, had inquired about the
insurance policies surrender values, and knew that her husband had obtained two
loans from his policies. She nonetheless read and signed the bankruptcy petition
which fails to mention the policies. These facts distinguish this case from United
States v. McCormick, 72 F.3d 1404 (9th Cir. 1995), where the wife did not read the
petition before signing it.

-- 3 of 4 --

4
We conclude that the evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to
the prosecution, see Stewart, 420 F.3d at 1015, was sufficient to sustain the jury’s
determinations that (1) the accounts receivable belonged to the defendants’ estate
and that Juan intended to conceal them, and (2) Charlene had the specific intent to
conceal the insurance policies that also belonged to the bankruptcy estate. The
convictions of Juan and Charlene Tenorio for bankruptcy fraud are AFFIRMED.

-- 4 of 4 --