FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P E ALS E LE V EN T HC IRC U IT SEPTEMBER 12, 2005 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 04- 15105 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C . D ocketN o. 03 -002 19 -C R -1-1 U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , P l ai nt i ff -A pp el l ee C r o s s - A p p e lla n t, v ersu s S E D R I C R O S S , D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lla n t C r o s s - A p p e lle e .

________________________ A pp ea l s f

rom the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e N o r th e rn D is tr ic t o f G e o r g ia

_________________________ ( S e p t e m b e r 12, 2005) B efo re B IR C H , B L A C K an d B A R K E T T , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M:2

S e dr i c R os s appe a l s hi s c onvi c t i on a nd s e nt e nc e f ora i di ng ora s s i s t i ng i n the prepara t i on and p re se nt at i on of fr audu l entF orm 10 40 U ni t ed S t at es Indi vi du al I n c o me Ta x Re tu rn s t o th e I n t e rn a l Re v e n u e Se r v i c e , i n v i o l a t i o n o f 2 6 U . S. C. § 7206( 2) . R os s a s s e r t s ( 1) the di s tr i c tc our tabus e d i t s di s c r e t i on by nota l l ow i ng hi m t o w i thdr a w hi s gui l ty pl e a , a nd ( 2) the di s tr i c tc our tvi ol a t e d B lakel y v . W as hi ngton , 12 4 S . C t . 25 31 (200 4), by i m po si ng an ob struct i on -of- j ust i ce e n h a n c e m e n t b a s e d o n ju d ic ia l f in d in g s u n d e ra m a n d a to ry G u id e lin e s s y s te m . T he G ov ernm entcr oss- appeal s R oss’ s s ent ence ar gu i ng the di stri ctcourt m isap p li ed th e tax ev as io n an d re lev an t co n d u ct G u id elin es in ca lcu lati n g R o ss ’s ba s e of f e ns e l e ve l s ol e l y on the t a x l os s a ttr i but abl e t o the tw o c ount s of the i ndi c tm e ntt o w hi c h he pl e d gui l ty . W e a f f i r m R os s ’ s c onvi c t i on, butva c a t e a nd r e m a nd f orr e s e nt e nc i ng. I . DI S CUS S I ON A. Mot i on to w i thdraw gu i l t y pl ea R o s s a s s e r ts h is p le a w a s d e f e c tiv e in th a t h e n e v e ra d m itte d h e in te n d e d to c o m m it th e f

r a u d a lle g e d in th e in d ic tm e n t. H e a s s e r ts th e d is tr ic t c o u r t e rr e d in f a ilin g to c o n d u c t a n e v id e n tia ry h e a r in g o n h is m o tio n . H e f u r th e rc la im s h is coun se l di d n otperf

orm ef fe ct i vel y. In part i cul ar , he cl ai m s hi s a tt orney w as in e x p e r ie n c e d , f

a ile d to f ile s u p p r e s s io n m o tio n s , d id n o t in te r v ie w w itn e s s e s , d id3

no tre vi ew t ax re turns, and i nacc urat el y pre di ct ed hi s s ent ence . L as t l y, he ar gu es h i s p l ea w as n o tk n o w i n g an d v o l u n t ary as w as ev i d en ced i n h i s p l ea co l l o q u y. W e w ill d is tu rb a d is tr ic t c o u r t’s d e c is io n to d e n y a d e f e n d a n t's m o tio n to w ith d r a w a g u ilty p le a o n ly w h e n it c o n s titu te s a n ab u s e o f d is c r e tio n . U

ni ted S ta te s v . Mc C a r ty , 99 F . 3d 38 3, 38 5 (11 th C i r. 19 96 ). A ft erthe di stri ctcourthas a c c e p te d a d e f

e n d a n t's p le a , b u t b e f

o r e s e n te n c in g , a d e f

e n d a n t m a y w ith d r a w h is gu i l ty pl eai f he “ ca n sho w a f ai r a nd j ustre as on for r equest i ng the w i thd ra w al . ” F e d . R . C r im . P . 1 1 ( d ) ( 2 ) ( B ) . T h e p r o v is io n s o f th is ru le s h o u ld b e “lib e r a lly c o n s tru e d ” w h e r e ap p lie d to p r e - s e n te n c e m o tio n s . Mc C a r ty , 9 9 F .3 d a t 3 8 5 . H ow ever , “ [t ] here i s no absol ut e r i gh tt o w i thd ra w a gui l ty pl ea . ” U ni ted Stat es v. Medlock , 12 F . 3d 185, 187 ( 11th C i r . 1994) . “ T he good f a i th, c r e di bi l i ty a nd w e ig h t o f

a d e f e n d a n t's a s s e r tio n s in s u p p o r t o f a m o tio n [ to w ith d r a w a g u ilty pl ea ] ar e i ss ues f

or the tri al courtt o d ec i de. ” U ni ted Stat es v. B uckles , 843 F . 2d 469, 472 ( 11th C i r . 1988) . I n de t e r m i ni ng i f the de f e nda ntha s m e thi s bur de n f or w i thd ra w al , “ the di stri ctcourtm ay consi der the t ot al i ty of the ci rc um st ance s su rro u n d i n g th e p l ea, ” i n cl u d i n g th e fo l l o w i n g fact o rs: “ (1 ) w h eth er cl o se a s s i s t a nc e of

c ouns e l w a s a va i l abl e ; ( 2) w he the rthe pl e a w a s know i ng a nd vol unt a ry ; ( 3) w he the rj udi c i a l r e s our c e s w oul d be c ons e r ve d; a nd ( 4) w he the rtheIn Bo nn e r v. Ci ty of Pricha rd, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc) , this Court 1 a dopte d a s b indingpre c e dent all de c isi ons of th e former F if th C irc uit ha nde d down p ri or

to c los e of business on September 30, 1981. 4 g o v e rn m e n t w o u ld b e p r e ju d ic e d if

th e d e f e n d a n t w e r e a llo w e d to w ith d r a w h is pl ea . ” I d. ( in te rn a l c ita tio n o m itte d ) . 1. W he the rthe dis tr i c t

c our t e r r e d w he n i t

f ai l e d to c onduc t

an ev i dent i ary heari ngon R oss’s m ot i on to w i thdraw his gui l t y pl ea . A d is tr ic t c o u r t's r e f

u s a l to h o ld a n e v id e n tia ry h e a r in g d o e s n o t a m o u n t to abus e of di s c r e t i on w he n the c our tha s c onduc t e d e xt e ns i ve R ul e 11 i nqui r i e s pr i or to a c c e p tin g a g u ilty p le a . U ni t ed Stat es v. St i t

ze r , 78 5 F . 2d 15 06 , 15 14 (11th C i r. 19 86 ). A n e vi de nt i a ry he a r i ng i s r e qui r e d w he n a de f e nda nt ’ s f

a c tua l a l l e ga t i ons o f c ir c u m s ta n c e s u n d e r m in in g h is p le a a r e n o t c o n tr a d ic te d in th e r e c o r d . U ni ted State s v . D abdoub- D i az , 599 F . 2d 96, 100 ( 5th C i r . 1979) ( i nt e rna l c i t a t i ons o m itte d ) . H o w e v e r , a h e a r in g is n o t n e c e s s a ry if th e d e f e n d a n t o n ly s e e k s to 1

“ re l i t i gat e r epre se nt at i on s m ade by hi m se l f, hi s l aw ye r, and the prosecut or i n o pen court . ” I d. Du r i n g th e p l e a h e a r i n g , th e c o u r ti n q u i r e d a s t o R o s s ’ s m e n t a l s t a t e . He r e pl i e d tha the w a s s uf

f e r i ng f r om ne r vous ne s s , butnothi ng be y ond w ha tw oul d be e xpe c t e d a ts uc h a t i m e . T he G ove rnm e nti nf or m e d hi m a tthe he a r i ng a s t o the na tur e of the c ha r ge s , tha the w i l l f ul l y a nd i nt e nt i ona l l y pr ovi de d f a l s e i nf or m a t i on on t a x r e turns , a nd the c our ti nf or m e d hi m of

the c ons e que nc e s of

pl e a di ng t o aTh e dis tric t c ourt did no t inq uire a s to wh e ther Ros s wa s ple a ding guilty a s a re sult of thre ats 2 or promi se s, oth e r t

ha n thos ec ontaine d in

theple a agre e ment. Ho wever, Ros s did n ot a ver in h is a f f i d av i t s , o r argu ei nth i s b ri e f

t o th i s c o urtth at

s u c hp ro m i s e s o r

thre at s o c c ur

re d . A c c o rdi n g ly, this iss ue is aba

ndoned. Un ited S

tates v. D ock

e ry , 401 F.3d 1261, 1262–63 ( 11th Cir. 2005). 5 f e l ony , the r i ght s he w a s w a i vi ng, a nd the m a xi m um s e nt e nc e he f a c e d unde rthe s ta tu te . T h e c o u r t a ls o in f o r m e d h im th a t it w o u ld ap p ly th e G u id e lin e s a n d th a t a d if f e r e n c e b e tw e e n a p r e d ic te d s e n te n c e a n d th e s e n te n c e h e w o u ld r e c e iv e w o u ld n o t b e a n e x c u s e to w ith d r a w h is p le a . T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s R u le 1 1 in q u iry w a s s u f f ic ie n t in r e s p e c t to a ll a r e a s in w h ic h R o s s h a s c la im e d e rr o r . R o s s ’s a lle g a tio n s c o n c e rn m a tte r s s u rr o u n d in g h is 2 coun se l ’ s per form ance , the m axi m um penal ty he f ac ed , a nd the na tur e of

the c h a r g e s . T h e s e a lle g a tio n s a r e c o n tr a d ic te d b y h is te s tim o n y a t th e p le a c o llo q u y . A s the di s tr i c tc our tc onduc t e d a s uf f i c i e ntR ul e 11 i nqui ry i n tha tr e ga r d, i tdi d not abus e i t s di s c r e t i on i n f

a i l i ng t o hol d a n e vi de nt i a ry he a r i ng. 2. W hether the distri ct

court erre d i n f

i nd i ngR oss hadno t

been deni ed close ass istan ce of

coun se l R os s a dm i tt e d a thi s pl e a c ol l oquy tha the ha d the c l os e a s s i s t a nc e of coun se l . “ T here i s astrong pres um pt i on thatthe st at em ent s m ade duri ng the [pl ea ] col l oq uy ar e true. ” Medlock , 1 2 F . 3 d at1 8 7 . C o n seq u en t l y, a d efen d an t“ b ears a heavy burden t o sho w hi s s t at em ent s [ un der oath] w er e f al se . ” U ni ted Stat es v. R o g ers , 8 4 8 F .2 d 1 6 6 , 1 6 8 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 8 8 ) .6

R os s ’ s m e r e a l l e ga t i ons he di d note nj oy the c l os e a s s i s t a nc e of c ouns e l do little to s h o w in w h a t w a y h is c o u n s e l’s f a ilu r e s a f f e c te d h is c a s e . C o u n s e l th a t is m e r e ly in e x p e r ie n c e d is n o t a u to m a tic a lly in e f f e c tiv e . Cha nd l erv. U

ni ted Stat es , 218 F . 3d 1305, 1316 n. 18 ( 11th C i r . 2000) ( e n ba nc ) ( c i t i ng U ni ted Stat es v. C r o n ic , 104 S . C t . 2039, 2050 ( 1984) ) . R os s a s s e r t s hi s c ouns e l s houl d ha ve soug htt o sup pres s e vi dence s ei ze d from hi s off i ce , bu tdo es no tas se rtun der w hat theory thatevi dence w arra nt ed supp re ss i on . H e f urther c l ai m s hi s c ou nsel had m ade a n i nacc urat e pre di ct i on as t o h i s s ent ence , ho w ever , the di stri ctcourtw arned R o s s n o t to r e lyo n a n y p r e d ic tio n s a s h e c o u ld n o t w ith d r a w h is p le a s im p ly b ec au se h is ac tu al se n ten ce is m o re se v er e th an an ti cip ated . W ith re g ar d to R o ss ’s o th e ra lle g a tio n s o f

in c o m p e te n c e , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t w a s w ith in its a u th o r ity to di sc re di tany a l l egat i on s thatR oss’ s c ou nsel w as i neff ec t i ve w hi ch w er e c on tra ry to th e s ta te m e n ts h e m a d e u n d e ro a th a t th e p le a h e a r in g . See U ni ted Stat es v. Fr e i x as , 33 2 F . 3d 13 14 , 13 19 (11th C i r. 20 03 ). 3. W he the rthe dis tr i c t

c our t e r r e d i n f

i ndi ng that

R os s ' s pl e a w as kn o w i n ga n d

vo lu n ta ry T he thrustof R oss' s a rgum ent , other than h i s c ou nsel w as defi ci ent , i s that hi s r e s pons e s dur i ng the pl e a c ol l oquy t o the f a c tua l ba s i s de m ons tr a t e a l a c k of un ders t andi ng and thu s, hi s pl eaw as “ un kn ow i ng . ” R ul e 11 o f the F eder al R ul es of C ri m i nal P roce du re re qu i re s the di stri ctcourtt o m ake c ert ai n a defendant ’ s pl ea7

w a s m a de know i ngl y a nd vol unt a r i l y . R os s a dm i tt e d t o the f a c t s w hi c h f

or m e d the b a s is o f c o u n ts f o u ra n d f iv e o f th e in d ic tm e n t, to w h ic h h e w a s p le a d in g g u ilty . H e c ont e s t e d hi s i nvol ve m e nti n the f a c t s tha tf

or m e d the ba s i s of

the r e m a i ni ng o f f e n s e s f o rw h ic h th e G o v e rn m e n t c o n te n d e d h e w a s r e s p o n s ib le . T h e c o u r t d id no terr i n fi nd i ng thatw hi l e the re sol ut i on of the fa ct s w ou l d b e germ ane a t se nt enci ng , i tdi d n otaf fe ctthe val i di ty of the pl eaby un derm i ni ng the fa ctual ba s i s be c a us e he w a s notpl e a di ng gui l ty t o the s e of f e ns e s . A dm i tt i ng t o the f a c tu a l b a s is w ith r e g a r d to c o u n ts f o u ra n d f iv e , b u t d e n y in g th e f

a c tu a l b a s is w ith r e g a r d to th e r e s t o f

th e f r a u d o f f e n s e s w o u ld b e r e a s o n ab le o f a d e f e n d a n t w h o d id n o tw i sh t o ad m i tt o an y o ffen ses b eyo n d th o se t o w h i ch h e w as p l ead i n g g u i l ty, es peci al l y i f he w as ra i si ng a B la ke ly chal l enge. R oss t es t i fi ed hi s c ou nsel had b ri ef l y di sc usse d h ow the G ui del i nes app l i ed t o h i s s ent ence . H e a l so ac kn ow l edged h i s und er st andi ng of the st atut ory m axi m um for e ac h cou nt , as w el l as ho w the G ui del i nes w ou l d o pera t e. H ow ever , he w a s notpr ovi de d w i th s pe c i f i c s e nt e nc e r a nge s . T he r e i s a s tr ong pr e s um pt i on th a t R o s s 's a c k n o w le d g m e n t o f h is u n d e r s ta n d in g a n d h is s ta te m e n ts a s to h is c o m m u n ic a tio n s w ith th e a tto rn e y s a r e tru e . See Medlock , 1 2 F . 3 d a t1 8 7 . On ap p e a l, R o s s h a s d o n e little to c h a lle n g e th e tru th o f th e s e s ta te m e n ts .8

R os s di d nots e e k t o w i thdr a w hi s pl e a unt i l w e l l a f t e rhe pl e d gui l ty a nd s hor t l y be f

or e s e nt e nc i ng. “ T he l onge rthe de l a y be tw e e n the e ntry of the pl e a a nd the m ot i on t o w i thdr a w i t , the m or e s ubs t a nt i a l the r e a s ons m us tbe a s t o w hy the defe nd antse eks w i thd ra w al . ” B uckles , 84 3 F . 2d at47 3 (ci t at i on s om i tt ed). In l i ghtof the pl e a c ol l oquy , a nd the l e ngth of t i m e be tw e e n the e ntry of the pl e a a nd P e a r s on' s m ot i on t o w i thdr a w i t , the di s tr i c tc our t ' s de c i s i on w a s nota n abus e of d is c r e tio n . B. T ax ev asi on an d relev an t cond uct gu i del i nes T he G ove rnm e nta s s e r t s the di s tr i c tc our tm i s s appl i e d the t a x e va s i on a nd r e l e va ntc onduc tG ui de l i ne s . “ W e r e vi e w the di s tr i c tc our t ' s appl i c a t i on of the S ent enci ng G ui del i nes de nov o, and i t s f i nd i ng s of f

ac tfor c l ea r e rr or. ” U

ni ted S ta te s v . P a tti , 337 F . 3d 1317, 1323 ( 11th C i r . 2003) ( quot a t i on m a r ks a nd c i t a t i on om i tt e d) . T he s t a nda r ds f orr e vi e w i ng the appl i c a t i on of the G ui de l i ne s be f

or e the U ni ted Stat es v. B oo ke r , 12 5 S . C t . 73 8 (20 05 ), deci si on appl y a ft er B oo ke ra s w e ll. U n i ted S ta t es v. C ra w

f o rd , 407 F . 3d 1174, 1178 ( 11th C i r . 2005) . “ A s e nt e nc i ng courtun der B oo ke rs t i l l m us tc ons i de rthe G ui de l i ne s , a nd, s uc h c ons i de r a t i on ne c e s s a r i l y r e qui r e s the s e nt e nc i ng c our tt o c a l c ul a t e the G ui de l i ne s s e nt e nc i ng ra ng e i n the sa m e m anner as before B oo ke r . ” I d. a t 1 1 7 8

– 7 9 .Ros s w a s sentenc e d u singtheNo vember 1 , 1 99 7 v e rs ion of theSentenc ingGuide lin e s. 3 9 A d efen d an tw h o i s fo u n d g u i l ty o f ai d i n g i n t ax frau d th atresu l t s i n t ax l o ss in e x c e s s o f

$ 5 ,0 0 0 h a s a b a s e o f

f e n s e le v e l o f

9 . U .S .S .G . § 2 T 4 .1 . H o w e v e r , if 3 th a t f r a u d r e s u lts in a ta x lo s s o f o v e r$ 5 5 5 ,0 0 0 , h e h a s a b a s e o f f e n s e le v e l o f

1 8 . I d. T a x l os s , f

orpurpos e s of

§ 2T 1. 4, i s “ the t ot a l a m ountof l os s tha tw a s the obj ec tof the offens e ( i . e. , the l oss thatw ou l d h ave r es ul t ed had the offens e bee n succ es sf ul l y c om pl et ed. )” U . S . S . G . § 2 T 1. 1(c) (1). T he G ui del i nes c om m ent ary d i rect s a d i stri ctco u rtt o "m ak e a reaso n ab l e est i m at e b ased o n th e av ai l ab l e fact s. " U .S .S .G . § 2 T 1 .1 , c o m m e n t. ( n .1 ) . “I n d e te r m in in g th e to ta l ta x lo s s a ttr ib u tab le to the of f e ns e ( s e e § 1B 1. 3( a ) ( 2) ) , a l l c onduc tvi ol a t i ng the t a x l a w s s houl d be co n si d ered as p arto f th e sam e co u rse o f co n d u cto r co m m o n sch em e o r p l an u n l ess the e vi de nc e de m ons tr a t e s tha tthe c onduc ti s c l e a r l y unr e l a t e d. ” U . S . S . G . § 2T 1. 1, com m ent(n. 2). C on du ctthatca n b e c on si dere d p artof the sa m e c ou rs e of c on du ct ca n i ncl ud e a“ cont i nu i ng patt ern o f vi ol at i on s of the t ax l aw s by the defendant . ” I d. T he a l l e ge d vi c t i m i n a l l the c a s e s of f r a ud w a s the I R S . T he m e thods a s s e r te d to c a rry o u t th is f r a u d r e la te d to m a k in g f a ls e c la im s w ith r e g a r d to t ax p ayer st atu s, d ep en d en t s, an d S ch ed u l e A an d C fi g u res. T h i s co n st i tu t es a c om m on s c he m e orpl a n a s though i tr e l a t e s t o s e pa r a t e t a xpa y e r s a nd r e turns , the10

I R S i s a c om m on vi c t i m a nd the r e i s a s i m i l a rm odus ope r a ndi . U . S . S . G . § 1B 1. 3, c om m e nt( n. 9( a ) ) . T he di s tr i c tc our t ' s f i ndi ng tha thi s c onduc tw i th r e ga r d t o the othe rt a x f

r a ud i s noti n the s a m e c om m on s c he m e a s c ount s f oura nd f i ve of the i ndi c tm e nti s c l e a r l y e rr one ous . A s the G ui de l i ne s w e r e i nc orr e c t l y appl i e d, r e m a n d is ap p r o p r ia te . C ra w f o rd , 4 0 7 F .3 d at 1 1 7 9 (h o ld in g th e d istrict co u rt’s m i s i nt e rpr e t a t i on of

the G ui de l i ne s “ e f

f e c t i ve l y m e a ns tha tthe di s tr i c tc our tha s not p r o p e r ly c o n s u lte d th e G u id e lin e s ” ) ( c ita tio n o m itte d ) . I I . CONCL US I ON W e a ff i rm R oss’ s c on vi ct i on , bu tvaca t e a nd re m and for res ent enci ng . S i nce R o s s i s b e i n g r e s e n t e n c e d b e c a u s e o f a n i n c o rr e c tap p l i c a t i o n o f th e Gu i d e l i n e s , we d o n o tad d ress h i s B o o ker a r g u m e n t. O n r e m a n d , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t s h o u ld r e s e nt e nc e c ons i s t e ntw i th B oo ke r , c ons i de r i ng the G ui de l i ne s a dvi s ory r a nge a nd

“ other s t atut ory c on ce rns a s w el l , se e [ 18 U . S . C . ] § 3 55 3(a) (S up p. 20 04 ). ” B oo ke r , 125 S . C t . a t757. A FFI R M ED I N PA R T, VA C A TED A N D R EM A N D ED I N PA R T.