Page 1

United States District Court for the

Northern District of Florida

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Case Number: 1:04 CR 1-001 SPM

Plaintiff / Appellee

vs.

RONALD RYAN SHEPARD

Defendant / Appellant

______________________________

REBUTTAL TO GOVERNMENT’S ANSWER TO DEFENDANT’S

MOTION TO VACATE JUDGEMENT AND SENTENCE

As acknowledged by the Government, the Defendant should prevail if he

can show that there was actual prejudice from the alleged error under Bousley v.

United States, 523 U.S. 614, 622 (1998) and Cross v. United States, 893 F.2d

1287, 189 (11th Cir. 1990) in a circumstance where the Defendant was convicted

by error in a situation where he is actually innocent. The Government, however,

argues the Defendant Shepard is not an innocent party. However, this is exactly

the assertion that the Motion to Vacate is based upon. 

The essence of this Motion is that since the time of conviction, the alleged

victim, Mr. Hall, has been indicted and has entered a plea of guilty in Federal

Court for committing the same type of fraud in the State of Mississippi that
Page 2

formed the basis and the allegations in the case at bar. The allegations now are

that it was Mr. Hall who came up with this plan of deception, just as he practiced

it in the State of Mississippi, and that had either the prosecution or the defense in

the case at bar bothered to obtain the bank records of Mr. Hall, this would have

been more clearly evident. This information has only come to light after careful

scrutiny and comparison as to what was utilized in the case at bar as revealed in

Patricia Gallo’s Affidavit. This was all accomplished because Mr. Hall hid this

information from both the prosecution and the defense to insure that he could get

away with it. 

The Government dismisses the defense obtaining bank records as “tactical

decision meant for a trial”. The Government offered no proof of that assertion. 

Similarly, the claim could be made that the Government made a tactical not to

obtain those same bank records but that is not suggested to be the case. 

Nevertheless, as revealed by events and the prosecution of Mr. Hall, there became

a new light shed on the subject matter here, where obtaining those records now

seemed to be a lot more important. It just became evident that once Mr. Hall had

been prosecuted in Federal Court in Mississippi that there was a practical

advantage of obtaining those bank records. Nevertheless, the security of the

information which forms the basis for evidence dictates that this is the necessary
Page 3

means of verifying financial information. It is asserted that the use of those bank

records and the evidence which has come to light and the prosecution of Richard

Hall that the evidence would support the Defendant’s position that it was Mr. Hall

who was the crook and not the Defendant. 

It is asserted and argued that it would be significant to make an actual

finding that Richard Hall engaged in operating in a scheme to defraud similar to

what he used in Mississippi by the means of falsifying his business records, urging

family and friends to claim compensation for work never done in order to commit

fraud and double invoicing his records to reflect this and hide the fact of his wrong

doing and that he used the Defendant as a means to orchestrate the creation and

existence of false documents. It is herein argued that Mr. Hall created this plan

and schemed to defraud the banks who extended loans to Mr. Hall for this

operation, as well as the insurance company who insured against losses and paid

money to Mr. Hall for non existent loses. These types of acts are argued and

direct that a direct verdict would have been found in the Movant’s trial and

therefore he should be entitled to have a hearing on this matter.
Page 4

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of the foregoing has been furnished to R.

Jerome Sanford, Assistant United States Attorney, 300 East University Avenue,

Suite 310, Gainesville, Florida 32601 and Thomas E. Miller, Federal Public

Defender, 101 SE 2nd Place, Suite 112, Gainesville, Florida 32601 by regular U.S.

mail delivery on this 22nd day of February 2007.

LAW OFFICE OF 

STEPHEN N. BERNSTEIN

/s/ Stephen N. Bernstein 

STEPHEN N. BERNSTEIN

Post Office Box 1642

Gainesville, Florida 32602

Florida Bar Number 145799

(352)-373-9555 (phone)

(352) 373-5277 (facsimile)

Counsel for Movant / Defendant