Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-09-03256/USCOURTS-ca8-09-03256-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Richard Lee Mellor
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Linda R. Reade, Chief Judge, United States District Court for

the Northern District of Iowa.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 09-3256

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Northern District of Iowa.

Richard Lee Mellor, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: April 22, 2010

Filed: April 27, 2010

___________

Before WOLLMAN, COLLOTON, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Richard Mellor appeals pro se the district court’s1

 judgment, entered after a jury

found him guilty of knowingly presenting to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) a

false claim by filing a return for the 2002 tax year claiming a refund of $240,008.79,

in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 287 (Count 1); willfully attempting to evade income tax

due by failing to file income tax returns and attempting to conceal his income for

2002, 2003, 2004, and 2005, in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7201 (Counts 2-5); and

Appellate Case: 09-3256 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/27/2010 Entry ID: 3658678
-2-

attempting to obstruct the administration of internal revenue laws, in violation of 26

U.S.C. § 7212(a) (Count 6). For the reasons that follow, we affirm.

We reject Mellor’s argument that the willful-blindness jury instruction

constructively amended Count 1 as it was charged in the indictment. See United

States v. Gill, 513 F.3d 836, 849 (8th Cir. 2008) (jury instructions constructively

amend indictment if they so modify essential elements of charged offense that they

allow jury to convict defendant of offense other than one charged in indictment). The

jury instructions listed the elements of the false-claim offense, including that Mellor

must have known the claim was false, fictitious, or fraudulent; and the willfulblindness instruction merely provided a means of inferring that knowledge. See

United States v. Aleman, 548 F.3d 1158, 1166 (8th Cir. 2008) (willful-blindness

instruction is proper if evidence supports inference that defendant was aware of high

probability of existence of fact in question and purposely contrived to avoid learning

facts in order to have defense), cert. denied, 129 S. Ct. 2756 (2009).

We further hold that the district court did not err in denying Mellor’s motion

to dismiss the indictment based on a change in the date he was alleged to have

committed the Count 1 offense, because we conclude that the modified date did not

constitute a constructive amendment of the indictment. The original and modified

dates--for each of which a range was given--were within two weeks of each other, and

both clearly referred to the same offense. See United States v. Harris, 344 F.3d 803,

804-05 (8th Cir. 2003) (per curiam) (reversible constructive amendment occurs if

evidence used modified essential elements of offense; no error in district court’s

finding of guilt on or about date other than date charged in indictment, as date was

“reasonably near” date alleged).

Finally, this court has previously rejected the contention that the IRS must issue

a tax assessment in order to meet its burden under section 7201 of proving the

Appellate Case: 09-3256 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/27/2010 Entry ID: 3658678
-3-

existence of a tax deficiency. See United States v. Gustafson, 528 F.3d 587, 593 (8th

Cir. 2008).

Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 09-3256 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/27/2010 Entry ID: 3658678