Stephen Yagman v. United States of America

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
STEPHEN YAGMAN,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent-Appellee.
No. 18-55111
D.C. No. 2:15-cv-07586-SVW-KS
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Stephen V. Wilson, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 21, 2019
Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, FRIEDLAND and BENNETT, Circuit Judges.
Stephen Yagman appeals from the district court’s order denying his petition
for a writ of error coram nobis under 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a). We have jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, see United States v. Riedl, 496 F.3d
1003, 1005 (9th Cir. 2007), and we affirm.
Yagman challenges his conviction for bankruptcy fraud, in violation of 18
U.S.C. § 157, on the basis that the government failed to prove the existence of a
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
FILED
MAY 23 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 18-55111
bankruptcy “proceeding,” and because the jury was not instructed it had to find
beyond a reasonable doubt that there was a fraudulent scheme separate from the
bankruptcy proceedings. Yagman unsuccessfully raised these claims in a pretrial
motion, on direct appeal, and in collateral relief proceedings. The district court
properly denied coram nobis relief. See Riedl, 496 F.3d at 1006 (setting forth the
requirements for coram nobis relief).
We do not consider the arguments Yagman presents for the first time in his
reply brief, see Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009), and the
requests contained in his reply brief are denied.
Appellee’s request for judicial notice is granted. The panel unanimously
concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.
App. P. 34(a)(2). Yagman’s request for oral argument is, therefore, denied.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --