Th e H o n o ra b l e J e d S. R ak o f f o f t h e U n i t e d State s D i s t ri c t C o urt f

o r t h e South e rn * D i s t r i c t o f

N e wY o rk , s i

t t i ng by d e s i g nat i o n. 09-0336- cr U S A v . E li a ( E l yah o) UN I T E D S T A T E S CO UR T OF AP P E ALS

F O R TH E SEC O N D C IR C U IT S UM M ARY ORDER R U LIN GS BYSU M M A R YOR D ER D O N OT HAV E P REC ED EN TIA L EF F EC T. C ITA TION TO A SUMM AR

Y ORDER

F ILE D ON OR

A F TE R JAN UA RY1, 20 07, IS P ERM ITT ED A ND IS GO VE RNE D BY F E DE RAL RULE OF AP P E L L AT E P ROCE DURE 32 . 1 AN D T H I S COURT ’S LOC A L RU LE 3 2.1 .1. W HEN C ITI N G ASU M M A R Y ORD ER

I N AD OC U M EN T F ILED W ITH T HI S COURT , A PA R T Y MUST CIT E EI T HE R TH E F E DE RAL AP P E NDIX OR AN E L E CT RONI C DATAB AS E (WI T HT H E N O T A T I O N“ S U M MARY ORDE R”). A P ART Y CIT ING A SU M M A R

Y ORD ER M U ST SER

V E AC OP YOFI T ON A N YP A R TYN OT REP RESEN TED BY C OU N SEL. At a s t at e d t e rm o f t he U ni t e d S t at e s C o urt o f

Ap p e a l s f

o rt he S e c o nd

C i r c u i t , he l d at t he Dani el Pat ri ck M o y

n i h an Co urt h o us e, 500 P earl

St reet , i n t h e C i t y o f New Y o rk, o n

t h e 22 day

nd o f Ap r i l , t w o t ho u s and

t e n. P r e s e n t: RALPH K . WI NT E R, RO BERT A . K

A T Z M A NN, Cir cuit Judges , JE D S . RAKOFF,

Dis tric t Judge . *

________________________________________________ U N I T E D S T AT E S O F AM E RI C A, A ppellee , v . No . 09-0336- cr Y E H E Z KE LE L I A,

Def endant , DA VID E L YAHO,2 Def endant-A ppellant .

________________________________________________ F o r De f e n da n t -A pp e l l an t : J O SEPH A. V ITA , Po rt Ch es t er, N.Y. F o r A ppell ee: S E E T H A R AM ACH ANDRAN , A s s i s t an t Uni t ed St at es A t t o rn ey (K at h eri n e Po l k F ail l a, A s s i s t an

t Uni t ed St at es A t t o rn e y , on the br ief

), f or Pr eet Bh arara, Uni

t ed St at es A t t o rn ey f o r t h e So ut h ern

Di s t ri ct o f

New Y o rk, New, Yo rk, N.Y. A p p e a l f rom t h e U n i t e d State s D i s t ri c t C o urt f

o r t h e South e rn

D i s t ri c t o f

N e wY o rk (Kara s , J. ). ON CO NSI DE RA T I ON WHE RE OF , it is h e r e b y ORDERED , ADJ UDG ED , and DECREED t h at t h e j ud gmen t o f t h e di st r i ct co ur t b e an d h er eb y i s AFF IRM ED . D e f e n d an t- A p p e l l an t D av i d E l yah o w a s c on

v i c te d ( f oll ow i n g a j ury tr i a l) of th r e e c oun ts o f t ax e v a s io n in v io lat io n o f 2 6 U . S . C . § 7 2 0 1 . P r io rt o s e n t e n c ing , E lya

h o o b je c t e d t o c e rt a in p o rt i o n s o f

t h e Pr e s e n

t e n c e R e p o rt arg u i

n g , inte r ali a , th at ( 1 ) h e s h ou l d

r e c e i v e a c c e p tan c e of respo n s i b i li t y credi t des pi t e h av i n g put t h e Go v ern

men t t o i t s b urden at t ri al , an d (2) t h e di s t ri ct c o urt s h o u ld

e x c lu d e un

p a id s t at e t ax lia b ili t ie s in c a lc u lat ing t h e t o t a l t ax

lo s s at t r ib ut a

b le t o h is o f f en s e co n duct . T h e di s t ri ct co urt h eard o ral argumen t o n E l yah o ’ s o b j ect i o n s at h i s s en

t en ci n g, a ft e rw h ic h

it d e t e rmin e d

t h at t h e d e fe n d an

t d id n o t qu a lify

fo ra c c e p t an c e o f r e s p o n s ib ili t y c r e d it an d t h at t h e t o t al

t ax l o s s pro perl

y i n cl uded un pai d s t at e t ax es . T h e di s t ri ct co urt s en t en ced E l yaho p r i mar i l y t o 1 5 mo nt hs ’ im

p r i s o nme nt o n e a c h c o unt t o run c o nc urr e nt l y , w hi c h w a s t he l o we n d o f t h e a p p l i c a b l e G u i d e l i

n e s ran g e . O n

a p p e a l , d e f e n d an t arg u e s t h at t h e d i s t ri c t c o urt c o m m i t t e d r e ve r s i bl e e rr o rby

d e ny i ng hi m c r e d i t f o ra c c e p t anc e o f

r e s p o ns i bi li t y and by i nc l u d i ng3

s t at e t ax li a

bi l i t i e s i n c a l c u l at i

ng t he t o t a l

t ax l o s s . We a s s ume t he p art i e s ’ fam i li ar i t y w i t h t he fa c t s , p r o c e d

ur a l his t o ry, an d

s p e c ific at io n

o f is s u e s o n

a p p e a l. T h e d e f e n d an t b e ar s th e b ur d e n

of d e mon s tr ati

n g th at h e qu a li f

i e s f oran a d j u s tme n t f or a c c e p t an c e o f

re s p o n s i b i l i t y . See U . S . S . G . § 3 E 1 . 1 ( a ) ; Un ite d S tates v . Smi th , 174 F . 3d 52, 55- 5 6 ( 2 d C i r . 1 9 9 9 ) . W e r e v i e wa

d i s tr i c t c ourt’ s g r an

t ord e n i a l

of c r e d i t f ora c c e p tan c e of re s p o n s i b i li t y f o r c l e ar e rror, a s s u c h

a d e t e rm i n at i o n i s p ri mari l y a f a c t u a l i s s u e . See United Sta te s v . Se w e ll , 2 5 2 F . 3 d

6 4 7 , 6 5 2 ( 2 d

C i r . 2 0 0 1 ) . S u c h

a f a c tu a l d e te rm i n ati on i s “ e n ti tl e d to great def eren ce o n rev i ew” an d “ s h o ul d n o t b e di s t urb ed unl es s i t i s wi t h o ut f o un dat i o n . ” United States v. T

aylor , 4 7 5 F .3 d

6 5 , 6 8 (2 d

C i r. 2 0 0 7 ) (p e r c uri am

) (i n t e rn a l qu o t at i o n

mark s o m

i t t e d ). A d e fe n d an t w h o “ c le ar ly d e mo n s t r at e s ” a c c e p t an c e o f r e s p o n s ib ili t y fo rh is o ffe n s e is en t i t l ed t o a 2- l ev el

r edu ct i o n

pur suan t t o § 3 E 1. 1. A

pp li cat i o n No t e 2 t o S ect i o n

3E 1. 1 cl ar i f

i es: T hi s a d j u s t me nt i s no t i

nt e nd e d t o a p p l y t o a d e f e nd ant w ho p ut s t he g o ve rnme nt t o it s b ur d e n

o f p r o o f at t r ia l b y d e n

ying t h e e s s e n

t ia l fa c t u a l e le me n

t s o f g u ilt , is co n v i ct ed, an d o n l

y t h en adm i t s gui l t an d ex press es remo rse. U.S . S. G. § 3E 1. 1, cm

t . n . 2. “ Co n

v i ct i o n b y t ri al , h o wev er, do es n o t aut o mat i call y precl ude a def en dan t f ro m co n s i derat i o n

f o r such a reduct i o n . ” Id. In

“rar e s i t uat i o n s ” a de f

en dan t may d e m on s tr ate a c c e p tan c e of

r e s p on s i b i l i ty “ e v e n th ou g h h e e x e r c i s e s h i s c on s ti

tu ti on a l r i g h t to a t ri al , ” as “wh ere a de f

en dan t go es t o t ri al

t o as s ert an d prese rv e i s s ues t h at do n o t rel at e t o f act ual gui l t . ” Id. A g a in s t t h is b a c k dr o p , w e fin d t h at t h e d is t r ic t c o urt p la inly d id n o t c o mmi

t r e v e r s ib le e rr o rin d e n ying t h e d e fe n d an

t c r e d it fo ra c c e p t an c e o f r e s p o n s ib ili t y. E lya h o c le ar ly c o n

t e s t e d h is f a c t u a l g u i l t a s t o a l l o f t h e c h arg e s a g a i

n s t h i m an d p ut t h e G o v e rn

me n t t o i t s b urd e n o f p roo f . Fo ri ns t anc e , E l

yaho at t e m

p t e d t o e xc l u d e f r o m e vi d e nc e a

mo rt g a g e a

p p li c at i o n i

n w hi c h he4

s t at e d h is in c o me t o b e $ 1 8 0 , 0 0 0 , w h ic h d e mo n s t r at e d

t h at h e h a d

un d e r s t at e d

h is in c o me in

h is W -2 f o rms . A f te rth e atte m

p t to e x c l u d e f a i l e d , E l yah o r e f u s e d to s ti p u l ate to th e a

uth e n ti c i ty of t h e evi den ce. On ce t h e m o rt gage a ppl i cat i o n was ul t i mat el y adm i t t ed, t h e def

en dan t t h en argued t hat he ha d

o ve r s t at e d

hi s i nc o me t o p r o c ur e a

“c a s h- o ut ” l o an. T hr o u g ho ut t he t r i a l , E l yaho j o i ne d E li a ’s o bj e c t i o ns w he r e t he e vi d e nc e i m p li c at e d E l yaho and mo unt e d an at t a c k o n t he G o ve rnme nt ’s c o o p e r at i

ng w i t ne s s e s t o und e rm

i ne t he i rc r e d i bi li t y . R e ve a li

ng l y , E l yaho ha d t he o pt i o n o f pl eadi n g t o t h e i

n di v i dual t ax ev as i o n co un t s an d go t o t ri al

o n l y o n t h e co n s pi

racy co un t , b ut h e i n st ead cho se t o “ t ake hi s ch an ces” an d g o t o t r i al o n al l o f t h e co un t s. Because E lya h o v ig o r o u s ly c h a lle n g e d

h is fa c t u a l g u ilt a s t o a ll c h ar g e s a g a in s t h im, t h e d e fe n d an t c le ar ly f a i l s t o qu a li f

y f o r an a d j u s t me n t f o r a c c e p t an c e o f

re s p o n s i b i li t y . See United States v. Cas tano , 9 9 9 F. 2 d 6 1 5 , 6 1 7 ( 2 d

C i r . 1 9 9 3 ) ( p e rc ur i am

) ( “N o t hi ng i n t he r e c o r d

i nd i c at e s t hat [ t he d e f e n d an t ] h a d an y p urp o s e i n g o i n g t o t ri a l o t h e r t h an

t o d e n y h i s f a c t u a l g u i l t .” ). A s to t h e i

n c l u s i on of s tate tax l i a b i li ti e s i n c a l c u l ati n g th e tot a l

tax l os s attr i b uta b l e to E ly ah o ’ s o ffe n s e c o n d

u c t , w e h av e n o d if

fi c u lt y a ffi rmi n g t h e d is t r ic t c o urt in lig h t o f United Sta te s v . F itz ge r ald, 2 3 2 F. 3 d

3 1 5 ( 2 d C i r . 2 0 0 0 ) ( p e rc ur i am

) , i n w hi c h t hi s C o urt a f

f i rme d t he d i s t r i c t c o urt ’s i

nc l u s i o n p ur s u ant t o U . S . S . G . § 2 T 1 . 1 o f s t at e and c i t y t ax e va s i o n a s r e l e vant c o nd u c t . 2 3 2 F. 3 d

at 3 1 8 . We d e c l i

ne d e f e nd ant ’s i nvi t at i o n t o d i s t ur

b bi nd i ng p r e c e d e nt i

n t he a b s e n c e o f an y c o m p e l l i n g re a s o n t o d o s o . W e h av e co n s i dered t h e def en dan t ’ s remai n i n g argumen

t s an d f i n d t h em t o b e wi t h o ut mer i t . F o rt h e f

o r ego i n g r easo n s, t h e j ud gmen

t o f t h e di st r i ct co ur t i s AFF IRM ED . F O R TH E C O U R T: CA T HE RI NE O’HA GA

N W OLF E , CLERK