0 9 - 1 0 4 5 - c r ( L ) , 0 9 - 3 1 1 8 - c r ( C o n)

USA v . Si em b i da (Pr i ce) 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 RULI NGS BY S UM M ARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE P RECEDE NTI AL E FF ECT . C I TATI ON TO A S UM M ARY ORDER FI LED ON OR AFTE R J A N U A R Y 1, 2007 , I S PE RM I TTE D AND I S GOVERNED B Y F EDERAL RUL E OF AP P E L LATE P ROCEDURE 3 2 .1 AND THI S COURT ’ S L OCAL RULE 32.1.1. W H E N C I T I N G A S U M M A R Y ORDER I N A DOCUM ENT FI LED W I TH THI S COURT , A PART Y M US T CI TE EI THER T HE F EDERAL A PP ENDI X OR AN ELE CTRONI C DATAB AS E ( W I TH THE NOT ATI ON “ S U M M A R Y O R DER ”). A PART Y CI TI NG A S UM M ARY ORDER M US T S ERVE A COPY OF I T ON ANY P ARTY NOT RE PRE S ENTE D BY COUNS EL . 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: P I E RRE N. LE VAL, RO BERT A . K

A T Z M A NN, BARRIN GT ON D . P ARK E R, Cir cuit Judges .

________________________________________________ U N ITED STATES O F AM ERIC A , A ppellee , v. N o s . 0 9 - 1 0 4 5 - c r ( L ) , 0 9 - 3 1 1 8 - c r ( C o n) WAY N E P RI C E , G E O R G E S I E M B I D A, De f e nd an ts -Appe lla nts .

________________________________________________ F o r Def en dan t -A ppell an t W ay n e Pri ce: L ARRY H. K R A N TZ , K ran t z &Be rman , New Y o rk, NY F o r Def en dan t -A ppell an t Geo rge Si em b i da: S ET H C. F A R BE R ( James P. S m i t h I I I , Jef f r ey J. A mat o , M at t h e wL . D iR i s i o , of couns el) , D e w e y & L eB o euf L L P, New Y o rk, NY2

F o r A ppell ee: ARI ANNA R. B E RG , A s s i s t an t Uni t ed St at es A

t t o rn ey (Kat h eri n e Po l k F aill a, A s s i s t an

t Uni t ed St at es A t t o rn e y , of

couns el), f

or Pr eet Bh arara, Uni

t ed St at es A t t o rn ey , So ut h ern

Di s t ri ct o f

New Y o rk, New Y o rk, NY 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 (C a s t e l , 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 u d g me n t s o f t h e d i s t ri c t c o urt are AFF IRM ED . D e f e nd ant s - Ap p e l l ant s Way

ne P r i c e and

G e o r g e S i e m

bi d a a p p e a l f r o m j u d g me nt s o f

t he U ni 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

(C a s t e l , J. ), en

t ered A pri l 8, 2009 an d J

ul y 15, 2009, respe ct i

v el y , co n v i ct i n g t h em b o t h o f co n s pi racy t o co m m i t wi re f raud an d o f o n e co un t o f sub st an t i v e wi r e f r aud . W e assume t h e par t i es’ f am i li ar i t y wi t h t h e f act 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. B o t h d e f e nd ant s c ha l l e ng e t he s u f

f i c i e nc y o f t he e vi d e nc e o n C o unt T w o o f t he i nd i c t me nt . N e i

t he rd e f e nd ant , ho w e ve r , ha s me t t he “he avy bur d e n” o f

s u c c e e d i ng o n s u c h a c h a ll e n g e . Se eUn ite d S

tates v . Y an no tti , 5 4 1 F. 3 d

1 1 2 , 1 2 0 ( 2 d

C i r . 2 0 0 8 ) . I n li g ht o f

t he s t ip u lat io n

in d ic at ing t h at an

e - ma il s e n

t o n A u g u s t 2 0 , 2 0 0 4 fr o m S ie mb id a ’ s a c c o un t t r av e le d v ia Pen n s y l v ani a, an d i

n t h e ab s en ce o f

an y ev i den ce t h at Si em

b i da al t ered h i s e-mail

acc o un t s et t i n gs b et wee n A ugus t 17, 2004 and A

ugus t 20, 2004, a rat i o n al j ury co ul d co n cl

ude b ey o n d a reas o n ab l e do ub t t h at t h e e-mail s en t o n A ugus t 17, 2004 o n

whi ch Co un t T wo was b as ed tr av e l e d i n i n te r s tate c om

me r c e . P r i c e ar g u e s th at th e e v i d e n c e c an n ot s u p p ort h i s c on

v i c ti on on C o unt T w o be c a

u s e t he r e i s no e vi d e nc e t hat t he e - ma i l w a s a p art o f , o ri n f urt he r anc e o f

, t he3

co n s pi racy b et wee n h i m s el f an d Si em b i da o r t h at h e co ul d h av e reas o n ab l y f o rese en t h at t h e email wo ul d b e s en

t . T h i s argumen

t al s o f ail s . T h e go v ern

men t pro v ed a c o n

t i n ui n g co n s pi racy be t w e e n S i e m

bi d a and P r i c e und e rw hi c h o ne o rt he o t he rw o u l d c o nd u c t ne g o t i at i o ns w i

t h a vi c t i m- c u s t o me r , o f

f e r i ng t o s e l l t he vi c t i m a bo g u s Alli anzs ur e t y

bo nd . Whe n t r ans a c t i o ns init iat e d b y S ie mb id a

a dv an c e d t o t h e p o in

t o f is s u an c e o f t h e b o g u s b o n d , S ie mb id a w o u ld arr an g e to h av e th e v i c ti

m p ay th e p r e m i um to P r i c e , b e c a

u s e S i e m b i d a h a d n o l e g a l a uth or i ty to recei v e i n s uran ce prem

i um s . No t wi

t h s t an di n g t h at Si em

b i da’ s n ego t i at i o n s o n

t h e C o un t T wo t ran s act i o n

n ev er r eac h ed t h e po i

n t at whi ch t h e v i ct i m wo ul d make a

prem i um pay men t t o Pr i ce i n t h e cus t o mary

man n er, t h e evi den ce w as s uch t h at a j ury

co ul d reas o n ab l

y co n cl ude t h at S ie mb id a ’ s n e g o t iat io n

w it h A g e n t Ke e le y w a s a

p r e lim in ary s t e p in

a t r an s a c t io n

t h at w o u ld ev en t uall y h av e i n v o l v ed Pri ce h ad i

t adv an ced t o f

ruit i o n an d t h at t h e e-mail

t o Keeley

was t he r e f o r e i n f urt he r anc e o f

t he a l r e a dy e xi s t i ng c o ns p i r a c y w i t h P r i c e . Al

t ho u g h P r i c e ha d

no kn o wl edge o f

t h i s part i cul ar e-mail , i

t was f o rese eab l e t o Pr i ce t h at h i s co n s pi racy wi t h Si em b i da m i g h t i n v o l v e s u c h e -m a i l s . Se eUn ite d S

tates v . Zich e tte llo , 2 0 8 F .3 d 7 2 , 1 0 5 (2 d

C i r. 2 0 0 0 ); United States v. B or tnovs ky , 879 F . 2d 30, 36-37 ( 2d Ci r. 1989). Pr i ce’ s addi

t i o n al argumen t t h at S ie mb id a w a s at t e mp t ing t o s t e e rA g e n t Ke e le y t o w ar d

a le g it imat e fin an c ia l in s t rume n t fa ils in li g h t o f t h e f a c t t h at a f ra u d u l e n t s am p l e A lli anzb o n d

w a s at t a c h e d

t o t h e A u g u s t 1 7 e -m

a i l . W e n e e d n ot p a u s e l ong ov e rS i e m

b i d a ’ s ar g ume n

t th at i n te r p r e ti n g th e w i r e f r a u d s tatute a s a p p l y i n g to d e f e n d an ts w h o d i d

n ot i n te n d f or th e i rc om m un i c ati on s to t r av e l

i n i n te r s tate co m m erce wo ul d gi

v e i t a wi der swe ep t h an

i s perm i s s i b l e gi v en t h e li m i t s o f Co n gress ’ s po wer und e rt he C o m

me r c e C l a u s e . We have p r e vi o u s l

y he l d t hat t he i nt e r s t at e r e qu i

r e me nt o f t he s tatute i s j ur i s d i c ti on a l

an d th at “ th e r e i s n o mensrea requi remen t as t o t h e purel

y j uri s di ct i o n al4

el em en t o f i n t erst at e co m

m un i cat i o n un der t h e wi

re f raud st at ut e.” United States v. B lackmon , 839 F . 2d 900, 907 (2d Ci r. 1988). T o t h e ex

t en t t h at Si em

b i da i s argui

n g t h at we m

us t reco n s i der t h i s h o l d i n g un d e r United States v. L opez , 5 1 4 U .S. 5 4 9 (1 9 9 5 ), or United States v. M or r ison , 529 U.S . 598 (2000) , h e po i n t s t o n o l anguage i

n ei t h er cas e t h at i

n di cat es t h at we s h o ul d read a c o n s t it ut io n a l mensrea r e qu i r e me n t i n to t h e w i r e f r a u d s tatute . R ath e r , C ong r e s s i s p e rm i tte d “ to regul at e and pro t ect t h e i

n s t rumen t ali t i es o f i n t erst at e co m

merce . . . ev en

t h o ugh t h e t h reat may co me o n l y f ro m i n t rast at e ac t i

v i t i es . ” Lopez , 5 1 4 U .S. a

t 5 5 8 . B oth d e f e n d an ts ar g u e th at th e d i s tr i c t c ourt a b u s e d i ts d i s c r e ti on

i n a dm i tti n g e v i d e n c e of t h ei r past cri m i n al co n v i ct i o n s un der F ederal

Rul e o f E v i den ce 404(b ). A s s um i n g ar guendo t h at t he d i s t r i c t c o urt d i d

a bu s e i t s d i s c r e t i o n i

n t hi s r e g ar d , ho w e ve r , any e rr o rw a s harm

l e s s i n li g ht o f t h e o v erwh el

m i n g ev i den ce i

ndi cat i n g t h at b o t h

def en dan t s kn ew, o r co n s ci o us l

y av o i ded le arning , t h at t h e A lli anzI n d o n e s ia b o n d s w e r e fr a

u d u le n t , w h e n t h e ir kn o w le d g e w a s t h e s o le c o n t e s t e d is s u e at t r ia l. F o re x amp le , P r ic e c o n t in u e d p e d d ling t h e b o n d s e v e n

a ft e rh e an d

h is at t o rne y r e c e i ve d no f e w e rt han t hr e e l e t t e r s f

r o m c o uns e l f o ra U . S . s u bs i d i ary o f Alli anza dvi s i

ng hi m t hat t he bo nd s w e r e f

ak e . S i e m

bi d a , f o rhi s p art , s t at e d

i n a p o s t - arr e s t i

nt e rvi e wt hat he co n t i n ued t o t ake f

ees i n ex ch ange f

o r pr o v i di n g A lli anz In do n es i a b o n ds “kn o wi n g t h at n o l o an h ad f un ded us i n g t h es e b o n ds an d t h at t h ey co ul d n o t b e v eri f

i ed.” J.A . 1149. N o rd i d t he d i s t r i c t c o urt a

bu s e i t s d i s c r e t i o n i

n p r e c l u d i ng S i e m bi d a f r o m c r o s s - e xam

i ni ng wi t n ess Pet erT so u ab o ut a ci v i l co m pl ai n t f i l ed ag ai n st h i m i n 20 03 . W h i l e t h e Du e P r o cess C l a u s e o f t he Fi f t h Ame ndme nt and

t he C o m p u l s o ry P r o c e s s and

C o nf r o nt at i o n C l a

u s e s o f t he Sixt h A mendmen t guaran t ee e v ery def endan t t h e ri gh t t o prese n

t a m eani n gf ul def en s e, wh i ch i n c l u d e s c ros s -e x am

i n i n g w i t n e s s e s , Uni ted

Stat es v. St ew

art , 4 3 3 F .3 d

2 7 3 , 3 1 0 (2 d

C i r. 2 0 0 6 ),5

t he s e r i g ht s d o no t t rum

p t he t r i a l c o urt ’s d i s c r e t i o n t o p l a c e p r o p e rr e s t r i c t i o ns o n t he i n t rodu c t i o n

o f e v i d e n c e , id. at 311. In

li gh t o f t h e f act t h at t h e ci

v i l cas e aga i n s t T s o u s et t l ed wi t h o ut an y f i n di n g b y a co ur t t h at h e h ad co m

m i t t ed w r o n gd o i

n g, t h e di st r i ct co ur t di d n o t ab use i t s d i s c r e t i o n i

n c o nc l u d i ng t hat c r o s s - e xam

i nat i o n o n t hi s p o i

nt r i s k e d und u l y p r e j u d i c i ng and co n f us i n g t h e j ury . M o reo v er, t o t h e ex t en t t h at ev i den ce o f

t h e 2003 ci

v i l act i o n m i gh t h av e b een pro b at i v e o f T s o u’ s un

t rut h f ul n es s , i t was cum

ul at i v e i n li gh t o f t h e f act t h at Si em

b i da wa s p e rm i t t e d t o c ros s -e x am

i n e Ts o ure g ard i

n g h i s p ri o r c o n

v i c t i o n f o r p a s s i n g a b a d c h e c k . G iv e n t h at d e fe n d an

t s c o n c e d e d

t h at t h e A lli anzb o n d s w e r e fr a u d u le n t an d c o n t e s t e d o n ly t h ei r kn o wl edge o f

t h e b o n ds ’ f

al s i t y , an d gi v en t h at t h e evi den ce s h o wed t h at t h ey recei v ed n umero us i n di cat i o n s f

ro m cli en t s an d f ro m A lli anz-r el at ed en

t i t i es t h at t h e b o n ds were f ake, S i e m b i d a ’ s ar g ume n

t th at th e d i s tr i c t c ourt e rr e d i n g i v i n g a c on s c i ou s av oi d an c e i

n s tr u c ti on to t h e j ury i s e n t i re l y w i t h o ut me ri

t . Se eUn ite d S

tates v . A ina -Mar

s ha ll , 3 3 6 F .3 d

1 6 7 , 1 7 0 (2 d

C i r. 2 0 0 3 ) ( s t at i

ng t hat a c o ns c i o u s avo i d anc e i

ns t ru c t i o n i s p r o p e r“( i) w he n a d e f e nd ant a s s e rt s t he l ack o f s o me s peci f

i c as pect o f

kn o wl edge requi

red f o r co n v i ct i o n , an d (i i) t h e appro pri at e f act ual p re d i c at e f

o r t h e c h arg e e x i s t s , i. e. , t he e vi d e nc e i s s u c h t hat a r at i o na l j ur o rmay

r e a c h t he c o nc l u s i o n be yo nd

a r e a s o na bl e d o u bt t hat t he d e f

e nd ant w a s aw ar e o f

a hi g h p r o ba

bi li t y o f t he f a c t i n d i s p ute an d

c on s c i ou s l

y av oi d e d c on f i rm i n g th at f a c t” ( i n te rn a l c i tati on an d qu otati on mark s o m i t t e d )). W e h av e c o n s i d e re d

t h e d e f e n d an t s ’ o t h e r arg ume n

t s an d f i n d t h e m t o b e w i t h o ut me ri

t . F o r t h e f o rego i n g reas o n s , we A F F I RM t h e j u d g me n t s o f t h e d i s t ri c t c o urt . F O R TH E C O U R T: CA T HE RI NE O’HA GA

N W OLF E , CLERK