STEPHEN YAGMAN V. USA, No. 18-55111 (9th Cir. 2019)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED MAY 23 2019 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT STEPHEN YAGMAN, No. Petitioner-Appellant, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 18-55111 D.C. No. 2:15-cv-07586-SVW-KS v. MEMORANDUM* UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent-Appellee. 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. 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 18-55111

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.