Defendant's wire fraud and bid rigging convictions are affirmed where: 1) defendant's conduct did not need to violate a rule or regulation of the E-Rate educational funding program in order to be fraudulent; 2) even accepting that her ultimate motives were laudable, defendant concealed material facts from the federal government in an attempt to induce it to fund her projects; and 3) the evidence at trial easily supported the jury's finding that defendant participated in multiple bid-rigging conspiracies.
Argued and Submitted October 5, 2009
Filed January 22, 2010
Opinion by Judge Tashima
Phillip H. Stillman, Cardiff, CA
Adam D. Hirsch, Antitrust Division, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC