0 7

- 5 2 2 2

- c r ( L)

USA v. Ware

1 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS

2 F OR THE SE CO ND CI RC UI T

3 

### S U M M A R YO R D E R

4 RU L I N G S B Y

S U M M A R

Y O RD ER

DO NO T HA VE P RE CE DE NT IA L E F F E C T
. C I T A T I O N T O 5 A SU M M AR

Y O RD ER

F ILED ON OR

AFTE R JAN UAR

Y 1 , 2 00 7, IS P ERM ITTE D A ND IS 6 G OV ERNE D B Y F ED ER AL RU LE OF AP P ELLA TE P RO CE DU RE 32 .1 AN D T HIS C OU RT 'S 7 LOC AL RU LE 3 2. 1. 1. WHE N C ITI NG A SUM M AR

Y OR DE R IN A D OC UM EN T F ILED WI TH 8 THIS COURT, A P ARTY MU ST CIT E EIT HER THE F EDERA L APPE NDIX OR AN 9 ELE CTRONIC DATABASE (WITH T HE NOTAT ION "S UMM ARY ORDER"). A PA RTY 10 CI TIN GA SU M M AR Y O RD ER

M UST SERVE A CO PY O F IT O N A NYP AR TYNO T 11 REP RESENT ED BY COUNSEL.

1 At

a state d T e rm

of the Un ite d State s Court of Ap pe a ls f or the Se c on d Ci rc uit , h e ld at th e Da nie l 2 P a tr i c k

M o yn i h an U n i t e d S t at e s C o urth o u s e , 5 0 0 P e ar l S tr e e t , i n th e C i ty o f N e w Y o r k , o n th e 2 8 thd ay 3 of January , two thousand eleve n.

4 Present: AMALYA L . KEARSE, 5 ROBERT D. SACK, 6 PETER W . HAL L , 7 Circuit J udg es.
8

_____________________________________________________ 9 UNI TED STATES OF AMERI CA,

10 Appellee -Cross-Appe llant,

11 - v. - Nos. 07-5222-c r(L ) 12 07-5670-c r
13 UL YSSES THOMAS WARE, also known as Thomas Ware , 14 Def endant- Appellant-Cross-A ppellee. 15

_____________________________________________________1 For

Appellant: Uly sses Thomas Ware pr o se, B rookly n, N.Y.

2 For Appellee : Andre w L . Fish, Ass' t U.S. Att'y , SDNY, N.Y., N.Y

.

3 Appea l from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ne w York.

4 This cause came on to be hea rd on the re cord f

rom the United States District Court for the Southern 5 District of Ne w York, William H. Pauley I I I , J udg e, and w as submitted.

6 ON CONSI DERATI ON WHEREOF, it is now her eby order ed, adjudg ed, and de cre ed that the 7 judgme nt of said District Court be and it her eby is affirme d.

8 This appea l, dealt with in part in United States v. Ware, 577 F .3d 442 (2d Cir. 2009) (" Ware I ") , 9 cer t. denied, 131 S. Ct. 432 (2010), in which we aff irmed def endant Uly sses Thom as Ware' s fra ud and 10 c on sp ir a c y

c onvic tio ns , h a s b e e n r e ins tate d in a c c or d a n c e w i t h W a r e I , f oll ow ingpr oc e e din g s in

the dis tr ic t 11 court on re mand with respe ct to sentenc ing issues r elatingto the scope of the criminal ac tivity that resulted 12 in those convictions. The sente nce or igina lly imposed on Ware wa s based on a calc ulation that included 13 a fo ur -s te p in c re a se in t he of fe ns e le ve l r e c omm e nd e d b y the a dv iso ry

Se nte nc ingGu ide lin e s 14 (" Guidelines" ) for

a def endant who pla

y ed a leade rship role in a cr iminal activity that involved five or mor e 15 pa rt ic ipa nts or wa s oth e rw ise e xten siv e , se e Gu ide lin e s § 3B 1. 1( a ). Al tho ug h the dis tr ic t c ourt ' s o ri g ina l 16 finding s supported the c onclusion that Ware was a leade r, we conclude d in Ware I that those finding s were 17 not sufficient to re veal the fac tual basis for the c onclusion that the criminal ac tivity involved five or mor e 18 " pa

rt ic ipa nts ," a s th at te rm

is e xpla ine d in

Gu ide lin e s § 3B 1. 1, Ap pli c a tio n N ote 1, or that th e a c tiv ity

wa s 19 " oth e rw ise e xten siv e " in a se ns e that wou ld dis tin g uis h it fr om ac tiv ity wa rr anti ng a le sse r o ff e ns e -l e ve l 20 enhanc ement. See 577 F .3d at 453-54. Ac cording ly , we rema nded the case to the district c ourt for e ither 2 1 s u p p l em en t at i o no f t h e r ec o rdwi thfi n d i n gs as t o wh y th e c ri t er i a o f § 3 B1

. 1 (a ) we re m et , o r r es en t en ci n g 22 if tho se c ri te ri a

we re no t me t. F amil iari ty wi th t he pr ior p roce e din g s and the dis c us sio n in

War e Iis 23 assumed.

24 On re mand, in an Or der e ntere d on August 13, 2010 ("War e I I ") , the district court de clined to 2 5 re s en t en ce W ar e, co n cl u d i n g th atth e fo ur- s t ep l ea d er s h i p ro l e en h an ce m en twa s wa rr an t ed , an d m ak i n g 26 su pp le me nta l f

ind ing s th at are di scusse d in g re a te r d e ta il b e low . F oll ow ingthe e ntr y of War e I I , th is 27 appea l was re instated. On Oc tober 8, 2010, thi s C ourt enter ed an or der a llowing the pa rties, within 10 28 day s, to file supplemental letter br iefs addr essing the additional finding s made in War e I I

. Ex tensions of 29 tim e we re g ra

nte d to e a c h s ide . T he g ov e rnme nt h a s su bmi tte d a le tte r b ri e f in su pp ort o f t he dis tr ic t 30 c ourt ' s d e c isi on . War e ha s file d moti on s to c omp e l th e g ov e rn me nt t o d isc los e to h im c e rt a in c a te g or ie s 31 of docume nts and information that ar e not re levant to t h i s ap p ea l , which is dec ided on the re cord in the 32 district court. Ware ha s made no submission with respect to the mer its of the district cour t's de cision in 33 Ware I I , to which we now turn.

34 A "pa

rticipant" in c riminal activity for the purposes of Guidelines § 3B1.1( a) is " a pe rs o n who, 35 though pe rhaps not convic ted, ' is criminally responsible for the commi ssion of the off ense.' " War e I , 577 36 F .3 d at 45 3 ( qu oti ngGu ide lin e s § 3B 1. 1, Ap pli c a tio n N ote 1)

. In the pr e se nt c a se , the re we re fo ur ob vio us 37 participa

nts in W are ' s secur ities fraud sc heme, to wit, Ware himself , Carleton Epps, Jeremy

J ones, and 38 My

ron Will iams. See Ware I , 577 F.3d at 453. On rema nd, the district court found that Thomas Vidmar, 39 the Chief Ex ecutive Offic er of Investment Tec hnology , Inc., was a "f ifth knowing participa

nt i n t h e-3- 1 c ri min a l a c tiv ity " be c a us e the e vid e nc e at tr ia l sh ow e d th a t V idm ar " wa s a wa re of the sc he me " and

that 2 he nonethe less continued to pay individuals with shares of t hat company that wer e af

fec ted by the 3 fra udulent press re lease s. Ware I Iat 2-3.

4 We revie w t h e fa ctual findings of the district c ourt for c lear err or. See, e .g ., United States v. 5 Stewart, 590 F .3d 93, 134-35 (2d Cir. 2009), c ert. den i ed 130 S. Ct . 1924 (2010). B ased on our revie w 6 of the re c or d, we se e no e rr or in the dis tr ic t c ourt ' s fi nd ingthat V idm ar w a s a fi ft h p art ic ipa

nt i n Ware ' s 7 criminal ac tivity within the m eaning of § 3B1.1( a). Acc ording ly , we conclude that the court prope rly ruled 8 that under that section, the four-step i ncre ase in Ware ' s advisory -Guidelines of fense level wa s warr anted.

9 Th e dis tr ic t court a lso ma de fi nd ing s in su pp or t of its c on c lus ion

that Ware ' s c ri min a l a c tiv ity wa s 10 " oth e rw ise e xten siv e " wi thi n th e me anin g of § 3 B 1. 1( a ). Th e fo ur -s te p in c re a se in o ff e ns e le ve l 11 rec ommended by

that section is applicabl e where the cr iminal activity led by the def endant e ither " involved 12 five or mor e par

ticipants or was othe rwise e x tensive." Guidelines § 3B 1.1(a) (empha sis added). Since 13 there was no e rror

in the court' s finding that the cr iminal activity led by Ware involved five participa nts, 14 we ne ed not addr ess the cour t's f indings in support of its c onclusion that the criminal activity was other wise 15 extensive.

16 Findingno err or in Ware' s sentence , we a ffirm the judg ment of the district cour t.

17 F OR TH E CO UR T: 18 CATHERI NE O' HAGANWOL FE, Cler k

1 9