NOT FOR PUBLICATION
D.C. No. 2:14-cr-00241-ODW-1 MEMORANDUM Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California
Otis D. Wright II, District Judge, Presiding Argued March 6, 2018; Resubmitted October 31, 2018 Pasadena, California Before: GRABER, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Defendant Yuzef Abramov appeals his conviction on five counts of engaging in illicit sexual conduct in foreign places, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2423(c) (2009). We affirm.
from California before each of the charged acts, which took place soon after his arrival in Russia, and then returned to California after each of the charged acts.
Defendant argues that, when granting a post-verdict acquittal on his conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 2423(b), which criminalizes a citizen's travel in foreign commerce for the purpose of engaging in illicit sexual conduct, the district court "found" that Defendant lived in Russia. We disagree. The district court, in this jury trial, made no factual findings. Rather, the court came to a legal conclusion that there was insufficient evidence for a jury to find in the government's favor on the dismissed count. And the reason why the court came to that conclusion appears to be that having sex with children was not the predominant reason for Defendant's trips to Russia.
Unlike the defendant in Pepe, Defendant does not challenge on appeal the jury instructions at his trial. Accordingly, Defendant has waived or forfeited any claim of erroneous jury instructions. United States v. Perez-Silvan, 861 F.3d 935, 938 (9th Cir. 2017). --------
2. We review for abuse of discretion the district court's denial of Defendant's motion to substitute counsel, United States v. Reyes-Bosque, 596 F.3d 1017, 1033 (9th Cir. 2010), and find none. The court conducted an evidentiary hearing concerning Defendant's request and permissibly concluded that the discord between Defendant and his counsel did not amount to a complete breakdown of communications but, rather, arose from Defendant's desire for delay and his disagreement with counsel's chosen trial strategy. The court permissibly concluded that counsel could provide an adequate defense.
3. Because we affirm the convictions, we need not consider the remaining issue.
AFFIRMED.