In the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

AUGUST TERM 2022 Nos. 21-1778(L), 22-351(CON) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appellee, v. MICHAEL AVENATTI, Defendant-Appellant. __________

ARGUED: JANUARY 19, 2023 DECIDED: AUGUST 30, 2023 __________ Before: WALKER, RAGGI, and PARK, Circuit Judges. ________________ On appeal from a judgment of conviction entered in the Southern District of New York (Gardephe, J.), defendant, a California- licensed attorney, challenges (1) the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction for transmitting extortionate communications in interstate commerce to sportswear leader Nike, see 18 U.S.C. § 875(d); attempted Hobbs Act extortion of Nike, see id. § 1951; and honest-services wire fraud of the client whom defendant was purportedly representing in negotiations with Nike, see id. §§ 1343, 1346. Defendant further challenges (2) the trial court’s jury instruction as to honest-services fraud, and (3) the legality of a $259,800.50 restitution award to Nike. AFFIRMED.

_________________

DANIEL HABIB, Appeals Bureau, Federal Defenders of New York, Inc., New York, NY, for Defendant-Appellant.

MATTHEW D. PODOLSKY, Assistant United States Attorney (Daniel C. Richenthal, Robert B. Sobelman, Danielle R. Sassoon, Assistant United States Attorneys, on the brief), for Damian Williams, United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, New York, NY, for Appellee. _________________ REENA RAGGI, Circuit Judge:

Attorney Michael Avenatti appeals from an amended judgment of conviction entered on February 18, 2022, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Paul G. Gardephe, Judge), after a jury found Avenatti guilty of transmitting extortionate communications in interstate commerce, see 18 U.S.C. § 875(d) (Count One); attempted Hobbs Act extortion, see id. § 1951 (Count Two); and honest-services wire fraud, see id. §§ 1343, 1346 (Count Three). Sentenced, inter alia, to an aggregate prison term of 30 months and ordered to pay $259,800.50 in restitution under the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act of 1996 (“MVRA”), id. §§ 3663A, 3664, Avenatti challenges (1) the sufficiency of the evidence 2 supporting each count of conviction, (2) the trial court’s failure to give his requested jury instruction as to honest-services fraud, and (3) the legality of the restitution order. Because none of these challenges has merit, we affirm the judgment of conviction.

BACKGROUND I. Trial Evidence

The crimes of conviction took place in March 2019 while Avenatti was representing Los Angeles youth sports coach Gary Franklin in negotiations with sportswear leader Nike. 1 Critical to the two extortion crimes was Avenatti’s threat to cause Nike reputational and financial injury if it did not pay him millions of dollars. Critical to the fraud crime was a scheme to deprive Franklin of Avenatti’s honest legal services in negotiations with Nike by (unbeknownst to Franklin) conditioning a settlement with Franklin on Avenatti’s own receipt of a solicited multi-million-dollar bribe. Because Avenatti argues that the trial evidence was