United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 03-1608

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the District

v. * of Minnesota.

*

Robert L. Janecek, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: November 18, 2003

Filed: December 22, 2003

___________

Before MURPHY, LAY, and FAGG, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

From August 1991 through February 1999, Robert L. Janecek was the

executive director of the Osman Temple Shrine Circus in Minnesota. After Shrine

officials discovered a secret checking account opened by Janecek in the Shrine’s

name, an investigation ensued. The investigation revealed Janecek had taken much

more than his $12,000 annual pay from the Shrine. Using a defunct company and

multiple bank accounts, Janacek understated Circus income and diverted it to himself,

and falsely reported some of the money he took as legitimate Circus expenses. To

explain the embezzlement, Janecek claimed he had a secret agreement with a

deceased Shrine leader to pay him commissions and expenses, although Shrine
*

The Honorable David S. Doty, United States District Judge for the District of

Minnesota.

-2-

leadership stated Janecek was not entitled to more than $12,000. Ultimately, the

Shrine lost over $300,000 as a result of Janecek’s actions. The Government charged

Janecek with mail fraud, tax evasion, willful failure to file tax returns, and willful

filing of a false tax return. A jury convicted Janecek on all counts, and the district

court*

 sentenced him to fifty-one months in prison. 

Janecek appeals challenging the sufficiency of the evidence to convict him.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, we conclude a

reasonable jury could conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that Janecek was guilty of

each offense. See United States v. Frost, 321 F.3d 738, 740 (8th Cir. 2003). On the

mail fraud counts, the evidence showed Janecek embezzled thousands of dollars

annually for more than six years and he used the mails to further his scheme. The

Shrine’s leadership, the circumstances surrounding the theft, and Janecek’s own

statements and actions showed the money was stolen rather than earned and he

intended to defraud the Shrine. See id. at 740-41 (elements of offense). With respect

to the tax evasion counts, the evidence showed Janecek willfully evaded taxes every

year from 1995-98. See United States v. Brooks, 174 F.3d 950, 954 (8th Cir. 1999)

(elements of offense). Janecek gave inconsistent reasons for failing to file tax returns

and had no legitimate bad debt to write off as he eventually claimed. The

Government presented enough evidence of willfulness to give the jury a reasonable

basis to find Janecek intentionally evaded his income tax obligation. Id. at 955. The

same evidence also showed Janecek willfully failed to file tax returns or filed a false

tax return each year from 1995-98. 

Janecek next asserts the district court abused its discretion by admitting a

transcript of Janecek’s sworn deposition testimony about his assets from a civil

proceeding against him by his divorce lawyers. Janecek did not object to admission
-3-

of the evidence at trial, however, so we review only for plain error. United States v.

Johnson, 28 F.3d 1487, 1499 (8th Cir. 1994). We find none. The district court

properly admitted the evidence. Janecek’s deposition statements that he was a

volunteer and received no income from the Shrine were relevant to the mail fraud

counts for which Janecek claimed he was earning commissions rather than stealing.

Janecek’s numerous false statements in the deposition were admissible to impeach

Janecek, whose credibility was at issue. The deposition testimony was also

admissible to show Janecek’s intent to evade taxes. 

Janecek also challenges sentencing enhancements for his use of sophisticated

means to commit his offenses and for his obstruction of justice. The district court

did not commit clear error in finding Janecek’s scheme to defraud involved

sophisticated means because he “moved embezzled funds through both current and

defunct entities in an attempt to conceal the fraud.” See U.S.S.G. § 2F1.1(b)(5)(c).

Note 15 to the Guideline states § 2F1.1(b)(5)(C) specifically applies to conduct like

Janecek’s–hiding assets or transactions by using fictitious entities. Last, the district

court did not commit clear error in finding Janecek obstructed justice. U.S.S.G. §

3C1.1. The district court properly found by a preponderance of evidence that Janecek

“knowingly and willfully testified falsely to several material facts,” and thus properly

enhanced Janecek’s sentence for obstruction of justice. See United States v.Pena, 339

F.3d 715, 718 (8th Cir. 2003). 

We affirm Janecek’s conviction and sentence.

LAY, Circuit Judge, concurs in the result only.

______________________________