### FI LED U.S. COURT O F APP EALS ELEVENTH CIRCUIT May 1 2, 2004 THO MAS K. KAH N CL ERK [PUBLIS H] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ N o. 03- 1137 7

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ D. C. Docket N o. 02-00041 -CR- 1-MMP

UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Plaintiff-Appellee, ve rs us HENRYJ. U SCIN SK I, D ef en dant- Appe llant.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ Appeal f rom the United State s District Court fo r the N orthe rnD istri ct

of F lor ida

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (M ay 1 2, 200 4) Be fo re E D MO N D SO N , Ch ie f Judg e, D U BIN A a nd C O X , Ci rc uit Jud ge s.2

PE R CU RIA M: In 20 02 , App el la nt Henry Usci ns ki pl ead edgu il ty to v io la ti ng 26 U.S.C. § 7201 by f ili ng a f al se ta x r et

ur n f or the 199 6 ta x y ear in whic h he kno w ing ly understated his taxable incom e by $1,551,863. A t sentencing, the district court en hanc ed U sc ins ki’ s se nte nc e fo r obstru ct ionof j ust ic e an d f

ine d U sc ins ki $ 2 5 0 ,0 0 0 . Us ci n s k i ap p ea l s th e e n h an ce m en tan dth e a m o u n to f t h e f i n e. We affir m , e xcept we vacate and rem and on th e am ount of the fine.

BACKGROUND

InJanuary

199 6, Appe llant H en ry

U sc ins ki b eg anr ep re se nti ng C laude L oui s D uB oc in ex tr ad iti on p ro ce ed ing s. T he gov er nm en t ha d in fo rm ed

U sc ins ki th atall of Du Bo c’s fu nd s wer e d ru g- ta in te d a nd for fei tabl e to th e Uni te d S ta te s. In May 1996 , D uBoc gave Uscinski authorityto handle DuBoc’ s financial aff airs with respect to D uBoc’ s account in Austria. Betw een Augus t and Novem ber 1996 , U sc ins ki w ith dr ewf or his pe rs ona l us e ap pr oxi m at el y $1, 500, 000 fr om DuB oc ’s acco un t. Usc in sk i t he n t ran sf erre d t ho se fun ds to va rio us ba nk s. U sc ins ki d id n ot r ep ort the f unds a s in co m e on h is 1 996 fe de ra l i nc om e ta x r et ur n.3

In 1 9 9 7 , t h e g o v ern m en tb eg an i n v es t i g at i n g th e e x i s t en ce o f D u Bo c’s pr ev iou sly

unknow n Austri anbank a cc ount . D ur ing that i nve sti ga tio n, the gove rn m en t l earn ed

of U sc ins ki’ s c ontro l ov er

the a cc ount

a nd h is transf

er s of funds. T he gov er

nm en t a lso f

ound ale tte r fr om

a nothe r of

D uB oc ’ s a tto rn ey s to U sc ins ki w ithan art ic le on c ountri es havin g la x m one y launde ri ng r eg ulatio ns. The reaf te r, th e g ov ern m en t as ke d Us ci ns ki ab ou t t he Aus tri an acco un t. U sc ins ki l ie d a

bout the loc at ionof

the m one y

tr an sf er re d and a bout the pur pose of the transfers - - stating that the m oney wa s used to support DuBoc’ s fam ily . Based on that conv ersation, the governm ent, w ith the help o f fore ign go vernm ents, tra ced th e m on ey

to de te rm in e if

itha d b een us edforDuBo c’s fam il y -- it ha d n ot . In s t ea d , t h e g o v ern m en td i s co v er ed th at th e mon ey h ad b ee n u s ed fo r U s ci n s k i ’s pe rs ona l be ne fi t. T he re af te r, the gov er

nm en t c harg ed

U sc ins ki w ithta x e va sio n, a nd h e pleaded guilt y

to the offense. U scinski ’ s Pre- Sentencing Investigatio n report recom m ended a two-le vel increase f or obstruction of j ustice and stated that $250 , 000 w as the statut or y m ax im um f ine . T he dis tr ic t c ourt se nte nc ed U sc ins ki to 42 -m on th ’s im

pr is on m en t an d a $2 50 ,00 0 fi ne .4 DISCUSS ION

U sc ins ki arg ue s th at

the dis tr ic t c ourt e rr ed

in im posi ng an e nhanc em en t f or obstru ct ionof

j ust ic e be ca

use ( 1) the dis tr ic t c ourt di d no t e nte r spe ci fi c fi ndi ngs of f ac t; (2 ) U sc ins ki’ s a ct s di d no t ob str uc t j ust ic e; a nd ( 3) im

posi tio n of

the enhancem ent am ount s to im perm issib le doubl e counting . When a district court im poses an enhancem ent for obstruction o f j ustice, this Court review s the district co urt’ s f ac tua l f ind ing s f or c le ar e rr or a nd i ts a ppl ic at ionof

the se nte nc ing gui de lin es to tho se f

ac ts d e novo . 18 U . S. C. § 37 42; U nit ed S ta te s v. Br ad fo rd , 27 7 F .3d13 11 , 13 15 (11 th Cir . 20 02 ). Se nte nc ing G uid el ine s § 3 C1 . 1 pr ovi de s f or atw o- le ve l e nhanc em en t i f “ the de fe ndant w ill fu lly

obs tr uc te d or im pe de d, or a tte m pte d to obs tr

uc t or im pe de , the adm ini str at ionof

j ust ic e dur ing the c our se of the inv es tig at ion , pr ose cu tio n, or se nte nc ing of

the ins tant o ff

en se of c onvi ct ion . ” U . S. S. G . § 3C 1. 1. A nd application n ote 4(g) m andates the enhancem ent if a def endant m ade a m aterial fa lse state m en t t o alawe nf or ce m en t of

fi ce r an d th at

state m en t si gni fi cantl y obstructed or im

peded the invest igation . Id. c omm ent. ( n.4(g)).5

I. Fi ndi ngs of

F ac t.

U sc ins ki f

ir st arg ue s th at

the dis tr ic t c ourt e rr ed

in ap ply ing a n ob str

uc tio n en ha nc em en t b ecau se th e co ur t fa il edto m ak e ad eq ua te fin di ng s o f fac t. To pe rm it m eanin gf

ul a ppe llate r ev ie w , adis tr ic t c ourt sh oul d m ak e spe ci fi c fi ndi ngs of f ac t w he n a

ppl y ing § 3C 1. 1. U nit ed S ta te s v. A lpe rt , 28 F . 3d 1 104, 110 7- 08 (1 1thCi r. 199 4) ( enbanc ). F or f al se state m en ts, adis tr ic t c ourt “ m ust f ind that the state m en ts w er e fa lse and m at er ia l” a nd “ m ust a lso e xpl ai n ho wthe state m en ts sig nif ic an tly obs tr uc te d or im pe de d th e inv es tig at ionor pr ose cu tio n of

the of fe nse . ” I d. B ut a

r em an d is unn ec es sary

if the r ec or d c le ar ly

r ef le ct s th e ba sis for enhancem ent. United States v. T ay lor, 88 F. 3d 93 8, 944 (11th Cir. 1996). In th i s ca s e, th e r ec o rd cl ea rl y re fl ec t s th e b as i s fo r t h e d i s t ri ct co u rt ’s en hanc em en t: the e nhanc em en t w as ba se d up on U sc ins ki’ s st at em en ts tha t the m one y ha d be entr an sf

er re d to sup port D uB oc ’ s f am ily . U sc ins ki d oe s no t di sput e that hi s st at em en ts w er e fa lse and m at er ia l. T he re fo re , w e ne ed not r em an d f or ad dit ion al f

ind ing s.6

II. Obstruction of Justi ce. U sc ink i ne xt arg ue s th at

his f al se state m en ts d id n ot o bstru ct the gove rn m en t’ s in ve sti ga tio n. A lth oughade fe ndant’ s de nia l of gui lt w ill not supp ort an e nhanc em en t f or obs tr uc tio n, U sc ins ki’ s st at em en t w as m or e than a de nia l of gui lt: U sc ins ki’ s st at em en ts c au se d th e gove rn m en t t o take the ad dit ion al and unusu al ste p of havin g f or ei gn g ove rn m en ts tra ce the $1, 551, 863 to de te rm ine if

the m one y

w en t t o D uB oc ’ s f

am ily . S ee U nit ed

S ta te s v. S al em i, 26 F. 3d 1 084, 108 8 ( 11th C ir . 199 4) ( co nc lud ing that de fe ndant’ s f al se state m en ts we re not m erely

denials of guilt because they we re m ade to im

pede and m isdirect the gov er nm en t’ s in ve sti ga tio n) . B ec au se U sc ins ki d id n ot s im ply de ny his gui lt, but ins te ad c onc oc te d af

al se , e xc ulp at or

y sto ry that m isl ed

the gov er

nm en t, the district court did n ot err c onclud ing th at U scinski significantlyobstructed justice.

II I. D oubl e Co unt ing . U sc ins ki a lso arg ue s th at the dis tr ic t c ourt e rr ed

in ap ply ing the en hanc em en t f

or obs tr uc tio n be ca

use doi ng s o am ount ed

to im pe rm iss ibl e doub le7

co unt ing . U sc ins ki arg ue s th at double c ount ing oc curr ed be ca use his f al se state m en ts w er e part

of his of fe nse of ta x e va sio n. T his Co urt r ev ie w s de nov o ac la im of double c ount ing . U nit ed S ta te s v. N av es , 252 F . 3d 1 166, 116 8 ( 11th C ir . 200 1) . I m pe rm iss ibl e doub le c ount ing o cc u rs “ wh en o n e p ar to f t h e G u i d el i n es i s ap p l i ed t o i n cr ea s e a d ef en d an t ’s puni shm en t ona cc ount

of akin d of harm that ha s a lr ea dy

be enf ull y a cc ount ed

f or by appl ic at ionof

anothe r part

of the G uid el ine s. ” I d. “ D oubl e co unt ing is pe rm itt ed if the S en te nc ing Co m

m iss ionint en de d th e re sul t, a nd i f the r es ult is pe rm iss ibl e be ca

use e ac h se ct ionc onc er

ns c onc ep tua lly

se parate not ion s r el at ed

to se nte nc ing . ” I d. ( ci ta tio n and quot at ion s om itt ed ). “ Abse nt a spe ci fi c dir ec tio n to the c ontrary , w e pr es um e that the S en te nc ing Co m m iss ionint en de d to appl y se parate gui de lin e se ct ion s c um ulativ el y . ” I d. T he gui de lin e ca lc ulatio n f or ta x e va sio n, U . S. S. G . § 2T 1. 1, doe s no t t ak e int o a cc ount

U sc ins ki’ s st at em en ts b ec au se tho se state m en ts w er e not part of U sc ins ki’ s of

fe nse of ta x e va sio n un de r 26 U . S. C. § 72 01. S ec tio n 72 01 s ta te s: Any person who willfully

attem pts in anym anner to evade or def eat any tax im posed bythis titl e or the pay m ent thereof shall, in additi on to o ther pe na lti es pr ovi de d by

law , be gui lty

of af el ony a nd, upo n c onvi ct ion thereof, shall be fined not m ore than $100 ,000 ($500,000 in the case of a co rp or at ion ), or

im pr iso ne d no t m or e than 5 y ears , or both, tog ethe r w iththe co sts of pr ose cu tio n.We rea d Winfield narrowly to preve nt it from conflicting with Sansone. W infield’s application * is limited to § 7201 evasions involving failure to file a tax return. Where a tax return has be en filed, Sansone applies; and the tax evasion is complete upon filing. 8 26 U . S. C. § 72 01. U nde r § 72 01, f al se state m en ts are som et im es part of the of fe nse of ta x e va sio n. S ee U nit ed S ta te s v. W inf

ie ld, 960 F . 2d 9 70, 973 ( 11th Ci r. 199 2) ( pe r curi am) (s ta tin g th at und er § 72 01, f or ta x e va sio n in vol vin g fa ilure to fi le ar et

ur n, af al se state m en t m ad e af

te r the da te the r et

ur n w as due is ana ff irm at ive a ct

of e va sio n) . B ut, und er

§ 72 01, w he n ta x e va sio n in vol ve s th e fi lin g of af ra udul en t t ax r et

ur n, the of fe nse is co m

ple te upo n f

ili ng. S an sone v. United States, 85 S.C t. 1004, 1011 (196 5). Bec ause Uscinski’ s tax evasion was * co m ple te upo n th e fi lin g of

his ta x r et

ur n, his f al se state m en ts t o th e gove rn m en t were n ot a co nt in ua ti on of h is cri m e. Furthe rm or e, U sc ins ki’ s f al se state m en ts i nvol ve d anot ionc onc ep tua lly se parate f ro m tax e va sio n. U sc ins ki m ad e his state m en ts i n an e ff ort t o pr ev en t the governm ent from

discovering h is tax evasion. This obstruction of j ustice is a harm

“ separate and dis tinct” from the “ obstructio n of the collection of revenue.” U nited St at es v. S ab ino , 307 F . 3d 4 46, 451 ( 6thCi r. 200 2) ( co nc lud ing that no im pe rm iss ibl e doub le c ount ing oc curr ed by im posi ng an e nhanc em en t f or obstru ct ionof

j ust ic e in a

ta x e va sio n c as e) . F ina lly , the se nte nc ing gui de lin es do9

not spe ci fi ca lly

pr ohi bit , in ta x e va sio n c as es , a n e nhanc em en t f or obs tr uc tio n of jus ti ce b as edup on fal se st at em en ts to law en fo rcem en t. Beca use Uscinski’ s false statem ents wer e not part of his offense of tax ev as ion , the e nhanc em en t f or obs tr uc tio n of j ust ic e doe s no t am ount

to im pe rm iss ibl e doub le c ount ing . T he re fo re , the dis tr ic t c ourt di d no t e rr in ap ply ing an e nhanc em en t un de r § 3C 1. 1.

CONCLUSION The r ecord shows that Uscinski’ s false statem ents sign ificantly obstructed the gov er nm en t’ s in ve sti ga tio n of

D uB oc ’ s Austri ana cc ount . A nd those f al se state m en ts w er e not

apart of U sc ins ki’ s of

fe nse of ta x e va sio n. B ec au se the record supports a § 3C1.1 enhancem ent for obstruction and because that en hanc em en t do es not

a m ount to doub le c ount ing , w e af fi rm the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s 2- level enhancem ent for obstruction o f j ustice. Uscinski also appeals the $25 0,000 fine, arguing th at the district court err ed in im posin g a fine in excess of the guideline range. The governm ent agrees that the dis tr ic t c ourt e rr ed

in im posi ng a $25 0, 000 fi ne . T he re fo re , w e ac ce pt the concession o f er

ror and vacate and rem and for re sentencing o n this is sue. AFFIR MED IN PART; VACATED IN PART AND REMANDED.