2006 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit
6-20-2006 

# U SA v . B anks P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 05-1715

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2006

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2006 D e c i sion s b y an author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du
. Re c omme nde d C it at ion

" U SA v . B ank s " (2006). 2006 D e cisio n s . P ape r 790. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2006/790P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

N o. 05- 1715

UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. VAMP I RE NAT I ON a /k /a F RE DR I K VON H AM I L T ON

a /k /a F RE DE RI CK HAMI L T ON B ANKS F reder i ck H

. B ank s,

A ppel l ant

O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e W e ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D
. C

. C r i m i nal N o. 03- cr - 00245) D i s t r i ctJ udge: H onor abl e Thom as M
. H ar di m an

A r gued: M ay16, 2006 B e f o re : R E N D E L L , V A N A N T W E R P E N , a n d W E IS ,

C i rcui tJudg es. ( Fi l ed J une 20, 2006) D avi d B

. C hont os ( A r gued) Ch o n t o s & Ch o n t o s , P
. C. 561 B eul ah R oad2 T ur t l e C r eek, PA 15145

C ouns el f orAppel l ant M aryB eth B uchana n L aur a Schl ei ch I r w i n ( A r gued) O ffi ce of t he U ni t ed St at es A t t or ney U nit ed S t at es Po stO ffi ce and C ou rtho use 7t h A venue & G r antSt r eet Pi t t s bur gh, PA 15219

C ouns el f orthe U ni t ed Stat es

____ OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

V A N A N T W E R PE N , C i r cui tJ udge. O n O ct ober14, 2004, a j ur yi n t he W es t ern D is t r i ctof Penns y l vani a convi ct ed Fr eder i ck B anks on char ges of m ai l fr aud, cr i m i nal copyr i ghti nfr i ngement , utt er i ng and pos s es s i ng c ou nt e r fe i t or fo r ge d s e c ur i t i e s , a nd w i t ne s s t a mper i ng . T hese convi ct i ons s t emm ed fr om B anks ’ s s al es of i l l egal l ycopi ed (“ p ira ted ” ) v e rsio n s o f

c o p yrig h ted M icr o so f

t so f tw a re p ro d u c ts t hr ough an I nt ernet m arketpl ace w ebs i t e, A m azon. com. Fol l ow i ng hi s convi ct i on, t he D i s t r i ctC our t , on February25, 2005, i m pos ed on B anks a s ent ence t hatvar i ed upw ar d byt hr ee mont hs fr om t he advi s or ys ent ence r ange s etfor th in the U ni t ed St at es Sent enci ng G uidel i nes (“G uidel i nes”), and , on t he G ov ernm ent’ s m oti on , al so i s s ued an i n pers onam for fei tur e j udgm enti n the amount of B a n k s ’s m a il f

ra u d p ro c e e d s . B efor e u s n o w i s Ba n k s ’ s a p p e a l f r o m hi s c o n v i c t i o n a nd s ent ence , i n w hi ch he as s er t s num er ous cl ai m s of err orbas ed on the D istric t C o u rt’s a c tio n s b e f o re h is tria l, on e v e n ts o c c u rrin g a t h is t r i al , and on the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s act i ons at hi s s ent enci ng. B anks w as se n tenc ed af

ter th e S u p rem e C o u rtan n o u n ce d it s lan d m ark d e c is io n in U n ite d S ta te s v . B o o k e r, 5 4 3 U .S . 2 2 0 (2 0 0 5 ). O f th e se v e n iss u e s B a n k s ra ise s o n a p p e a l, tw o a re n o v e l to3 t hi s Cou r t
. Fi r s t , Ba n k s r a i s e s t h e q u e s t i o n whe t h e rt h e Di s t r i ct C our t w as obl i gat ed t o pr ovi de hi m w i t h advanc e noti ce u n der Feder al R ul e of Cri m i nal P r ocedur e 32( h) of i t s i nt ent , under B ooker , t o varyit s sent ence fr om t he advi s or ys ent ence r ange s et for t h i n t he G ui del i nes . Second, B ank s q u est i ons w hethert he D i str i ctC our thad s t atut or yauthor i t yt o or deran i n pers onam for fei tur e j udgm entagai ns thi m fort he amountof the pr ocee ds he o b ta in e d th ro u g h h is m a il f ra u d

. A s w e expl ai n bel ow , w e fi n d n o err ori n t he D i s t r i ct C o u rt’s a c tio n s b e f

o re , d u rin g , o r a f

ter B a n k s’s tr ia l o r a t h is s ent enci ng. F u rt herm or e, w e conc l ude the D i s t r i ctC our thad s t atut or yauthor i t yt o i s s ue the i n pers onam fo r fei tur e j udgm entand w as notobl i gat ed t o pr ovi de adva nce not i ce of i t s i nt entt o v ary f ro m B a n k s’s G u id e lin e s se n ten c in g ra n g e . A c c o rd in g ly , w e w ill a f f i r m B a n k s ’ s c o n v i c t i o n s a n d s e n t e n c e i n t h e i re n t i r e t y. I. I n s et t i ng for t h t he fa ct s of thi s cas e, w e cons t rue them i n t he l i ght m os t favor abl e t o t he G overnm ent , as w e mustfol l ow i ng t he j ur y ’ s gui l t yver di ct
. G l as s er v. U ni t ed St at es , 315 U
. S. 60, 80 ( 1942)

. A ccor di ng t o t he evi dence adduce d att r i al , i n 2002 B anks opened a s el l er ’ s acc ount on A m azon. com, an on- l i ne mar ketpl ace , us i ng t he names R i ck B ur ges s and J ohn C ai n. W hen B anks opened th e se a c c o u n ts, A m a z o n .co m in f o rm e d h im th a t o n lyf

u ll reta il ver sion s o f s oftw ar e pr oduct s coul d be s ol d t hr ough hi s acc ount a n d th a t s a le s o f

c o p ie d o r d u p lic a te d s o f tw a re w e re p ro h ib ite d

. B anks t hen pos t ed for s al e on hi s acc ount var i ous M i cr os oft pr oduct s , forw hi ch pr oduct s he s etpr i ces and post ed addi t i onal in f o rm a tio n c o n c e rn in g th e p ro d u c ts’ c o n d iti o n . T h ro u g h h is s el l er ’ s acc ount , B anks s ol d copi es of M i cr os oft pr oduct s t o a var i ety of buy er s fr om 2002 i nt o 2003. T hes e buy er s su sp ect ed t hatt he softw ar e t heypur chas ed fr om B anks w as i l l egal l ycopi ed beca us e the compactdi s cs ( “C D s ”) t heyr ece i ved fr om B anks cont ai ned gene r i c w hi t e C D s w i t h fake l abel s an d fa ke pac kage in s e rt s . B y2 0 0 3 , A m a z o n .co m h a d re c e iv e d se v e ra l co m p lain ts4 aboutB anks ’ s act i vi t i es . I n J anuary , 2003, A m azon. com i nform ed B an k s itw as b lock ing h is acc o u n t bec au se o f re p o rt s o f b u y ers re c e iv in g “ re c o p ie d ” M ic ro s o f t s o f tw a re . B anks t hen opene d a new s el l er ’ s acc ounton A m azon. com undert he name M ark H ow ar d. U s i ng t hi s new accou nt , B anks pos t ed addi t i on al adver t i s ement s offe r i ng var i ous M i cr os oft pr oduct s fo r sal e. O ne buy er , A ct i on Soft w ar e, I nc. , pur chas ed a t ot al of $294, 859. 00 of M i cr os oftpr oduct s fr om B anks

. A ct i on Soft w ar e expe ct ed t o r ece i ve 50 boxes of pr oduct , butonl y5 boxes of pr oductarr i ved vi a U ni t ed Par cel Ser vi ce ( “U PS”) , w hi ch boxes cont ai ned C D s w i t h t he IBM name on t hem. A ft er openi ng one of thes e b o x es, A cti o n S o ftw are ’s rep rese n ta ti v e, S am an tha B elfe r, con cl ud ed the com pan yhad b e en d efrauded

. H ow ever, becau se B anks had s entt he C D s cas h- on- del i very , B el fer had al r eadygi ven U PS a chec k for $49, 000. 00 m ade outt o B anks i n excha nge fort he C D s. A ft erB anks deni ed k n ow l edge of t he I B M C D s , B el fer cont act ed the F ed era l B ur eau of I nves t i gat i on ( “FB I ”) , w hi ch i ni t i at ed an i nves t i gat i on. FB I agent s w entt o B an k s ’ s r es i dence , w her eupon B anks i nform ed t hem he had no know l edge o f w hy A c tio n S o f

tw a re d id n o t r e c e iv e its M ic ro s o f t p ro d u c ts
. In M ay , 2 0 0 3 , the F B I ob tai n ed a se arc h w arran t fo r B an k s’s r esi d ence . A s ear ch of the r es i dence r evea l ed comput er s , bl ank C D s , a C D dupl i cat i ng m achi ne, and empt yboxes fr om M i cr os oft an d IB M so ftw are . T h e F B I also se arc h ed the c o n tents o f B an k s’s comput er s , w hi ch cont ent s i ncl uded i m ages of t he fr ont and bac k s id e s o f M ic ro s o f

t s o f tw a re b o x e s . M eanw hi l e, B anks cont i nued t o s el l al l eg ed M i cr os oft s oftw ar e and appr oache d V i oSoft w ar e, a C ol or ado- bas ed r es el l er of s oftw ar e fr om w hi ch B anks had pur chas ed a M i cr os oftpr oduct i n 2002. B anks convi nced W arr en D o, t he chi ef e xecut i ve off i cer of V i oSoft w ar e, t o s el l hi m $58, 661 of M i cr os ofts oftw ar e. B anks to ld D o h e n e e d e d th e p ro d u c ts im m e d iate ly , an d D o a g re e d to a c c e p t c a s h o n d e liv e ry in lie u o f a d v a n c e p a ym e n t. V i oSoft w ar e t hen sentB anks a part i al s hi pm entvi a Feder al5 E xp res s on A ug ust28 , 20 03 , and B ank s pres ented Fe deral E xp res s w i t h a che ck for$58, 661 and made pay abl e t o V i oSoft w ar e, w hi ch chec k w as actual l yfake

. W h en D o r ece i ved the fa ke che ck, he c o n tac ted B a n k s to tell him th a t h e w a n ted V io S o f tw a re ’s p ro d u c ts re tu rn e d a n d th a t h e k n e w th e c h e c k w a s a f a k e a n d h a d sp o k e n to th e F B I. O n S e p tem b e r 3 , 2 0 0 3 , B a n k s re sp o n d e d th a t h e w o u ld r e tu r n t h e p r o d u c t s i f

Do wo u l d r e tu r n t h e f

a k e c h e c k t o h i m. Do ag ree d to return B an k s’s fa k e c h ec k u p o n rec eipt o f V ioS o ftw are ’s produ ct s. O n t hats ame dat e, D o r ece i ved a s ubpoena f r om a gr and j u r yi n t h e We s t e r n Di s t r i c to f P e n n s y l v a n i a . T h e n e x td a y , Do r ece i ved onl ya part i al s hi pm entfr om B anks

. D o t hen emai l ed B anks t o i nform hi m t hathe h ad been s ubpoenae d, t hathe had s poken w i t h t he F B I, an d agai n r eques t ed the r etur n of V i oS oftw are’ s produc t s. O n S eptem ber 17, D o em ai l ed B ank s: “I s poke t o t hem on M ondayagai n and t ol d t hem t he trut h. I t ol d t hem I w as t r y ing to w o rk itoutw i t h y ou and i f y ou pai d m e b a c k f

o re v e r yth i n g y o u o we I wou l d s e n d t he c h e c k b a c k t o yo u . I ’ m s u p p o s e d t o c a l l t h e m i n a f e w d a ys to g iv e th e m a s ta tu s .” S. A pp. 55. B anks r es ponded:

“ P lea se d o n ’t g iv e th e m a n yin f o rm a tio n th e yc a n still s upeana [s i c] y ou if

y ou do! and thi s w oul d al l be for n o th in g . it ’s u p to y o u o f c o u rse b u t I w o u ld p re f e r th a t. l et ’ s co n side rt hatw e ow e y ou and ar e w or ki ng off a c re d it.” S. A pp. 55. B anks eventual l ys entD o a pac kage, butt he pac kage c o n tain e d o n lyd a m a g e d m a ter ials . In th e m e a n tim e , B a n k s s o ld to ot herbuy er s s om e of t he s oftw ar e he ha d obt ai ned fr om V io S o f tw a re . B as ed on i nform at i on t hatD o s uppl i ed, t he FB I s ear ched B anks ’ s r es i dence a s econd t i m e on Sept ember29, 2003. T hat s ear ch uncove r ed addi t i onal evi dence of s oftw ar e pi r acy , i ncl udi ng c o m p u te rs a n d M ic ro s o f t s o f tw a re p ro d u c ts a n d p a c k a g e s .6 O n O ct ober7, 2003, a gr and j ur yr etur ned a f i ve- count i ndi ctm entagai ns tB anks

. A s uper s edi ng i ndi ctm enti s s ued on M a y4 , 2 0 0 4 , ad d in g c o u n ts of u tterin g a n d p o ss e ss in g c o u n ter f e it or for ged s ecur i t i es , and on A ugus t 10, 2004, a gr and j ur yr etur ned a se c o n d su p e rse d in g in d ictm e n t c h a rg in g B a n k s w ith th re e c o u n ts o f m ail fra u d , 1 8 U
. S

. C

. § 1 3 4 1 (C o u n ts O n e, T w o , an d T h ree ); one countof copyr i ghti nfr i ngement , 17 U
. S. C

. § 506( a) ( 1) and 18 U
. S. C

. § 2319( b) ( 1) ( C ountFour ) ; one countof m oneyl aunder i ng, 18 U
. S. C

. § 1957 ( C ountFi v e); one countof ut t er i ng and pos s es s i ng count er fei tand for ged s ecur i t i es , 18 U
. S. C

. § 513( a) (C o u n t S ix ) ; a n d o n e c o u n t o f w itn e s s ta m p e ri n g , 1 8 U .S .C . § 1512( b) ( 2) ( A ) ( C ount Seven)

. T he s econd s uper s edi ng i ndi ctm ent a ls o c o n ta in e d f

o rf e itu re a lle g a tio n s re la tin g to , in tera lia , B an k s’s a lle g e d m a il f

ra u d

. T he ca s e then pr ocee ded t o t r i al , and af ter ten day s of tes tim o n y , o n O c to b e r 1 4 , 2 0 0 4 , th e ju ry f o u n d B a n k s g u ilty o n a ll se v e n c o u n ts. A t th e c lo se o f trial, B a n k s m o v e d f o r a c q u itt a l, w hi ch mot i on t he D i s t r i ctC our tdeni ed. B efor e s ent enc ing, t he G overnm entfi l ed a mot i on foran i n p erso nam m oneyj udgm ent agai ns tB anks , al l egi ng B anks had “a cqui r ed th e s u m of $ 7 0, 708. 59 f ro m h is v io la tio n o f

1 8 U .S .C . § 1 3 4 1 .” A p p . 1 4 4 2 -4 3
. A t sen te n c in g o n F e b ru a ry 2 5 , 2 0 0 5 , th e D is tr ic t C o u rt h ea rd or al ar gum enton t he in p ers onam for fei tur e j udgm enti s s ue, at w h ich B an k s’s co u n sel claim ed the D istri ct C o u rtlack ed statu tory author i t yt o i m pos e s uch a j udgm ent
. T he D i s t r i ctC our tobs erved t hatt her e w as no contr ol l i ng cas e l aw on t he ques t i on w hethert he G overnm ent w as ent i t l ed t o an i n pers onam m oneyj udgm ent w ith o u t s p e c if

ic re f e re n c e to a n yf

o rf e ita b le p ro p e rt y . Fol l owi ng a r gu ment , t he D i s t r i c tCour ts e nt e nc e d Ban ks

. B anks ’ s advi s or yG ui del i nes s ent ence r ange w as 46- 5 7 mon th s , but t he D i s t r i ctC our t , aft ercons i der i ng t hi s advi s or yr ange, t he g r o u n d s r a i s e d b yt h e p a r t i e s a n d t h e f a c t o r s s e t f

o r t h i n 1 8 U. S

. C. § 3553( a) , s ent ence d B anks t o 60 m ont hs i m pr i s onm entand thr ee y ear s ’ s upervi s ed r el eas e. A pp. 2. T he D i s t r i ctC our tal s o or der ed an i n pers onam for fei tur e j udgm entagai ns tB anks for$70, 708. 59, th e am ou nt of B ank s’ s m ai l fraud proceeds. A pp . 14 44
. T h isR u le 3 2 (h ) s ta te s , 1 “B e f o r e t he courtm aydepartfr om t he appl i cabl e s ent enci ng r ange on a gr ound not i dent i fi ed fordepartur e ei t heri n t he pr es ent ence r epor tori n a part y ’ s pr ehea r i ng s ubm i s s i on, t he c ou rt m ust give t he part i es reas on able no t i ce that i t is con tem p lat ing su ch a d ep arture. T h e n o ti ce m u st s peci fyany gr ound on w hi ch the courti s cont empl at i ng a depa r tur e. ” 7 t i m el yappea l fol l ow ed. II. W e have j ur i s di ct i on overt he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s O r derof j udgm entand convi ct i on pur s uantt o 28 U
. S. C

. § 1291. W e have ju ri s d ic tio n to re v ie w B a n k s ’ s s e n te n c e p u rs u a n t to 2 8 U .S .C . § 3 7 4 2 (a). U n it ed S tat es v . C o o p er, 43 7 F
. 3 d 3 2 4 , 3 2 7 (3d C ir

. 2 0 0 6 ). III
. A. W e fi r s taddr es s w hether , aft er U ni t ed St at es v. B ooker , 543 U
. S. 220 ( 2005) , R ul e 32(h) r equi r ed t he D i s t r i ct C our t t o pr ovi de advanc e not i ce of i t s i nt entt o i m pos e a s ent ence t hatvar i ed fr om the a d v isoryG u idelines ra n g e . A lth o u g h B an k s’s ad v isory G u idelines sen tenc ing ran g e w as 4 6 -57 m o n ths, th e D istri ct C o u rt im p o se d a se n ten c e o f

6 0 m o n th s. T h e D istric t C o u rt d id n o t, how ever , m ake a form al departur e fr om the G ui del i nes s ent enci ng ra n g e . I n hi s br i ef, B anks cont ended t hat t he D i s t r i ctC our terr ed by vary i ng i t s s ent ence upw ar d and fa i l i ng t o pr ovi de adva nce not i ce of i t s i nt ent i on t o do s o. B anks al l eged thi s fai l ur e t o pr ovi de ad v an ce n o ti ce w as a v iolati o n o f F ed

. R
. C ri m . P
. 3 2 (h). B an k s B r. 1 at39. I n i t s b r i ef, t he G overnm entcorr ect l yobs erved thatB anks di d no t o bject t o hi s s ent ence and t ook t he pos i t i on t hatB anks cou l d not est abli sh plai n error becau se he fai l ed t o s t at e w h a t, i fF o r lexico g rap h ic p u rpo ses, w e ad o p t the E igh th C ir cu it ’s 2 ter m in o lo g yf

ro m U n ited S tate s v . S itt in g B e a r, 4 3 6 F .3 d 9 2 9 (8 th C ir

. 2 0 0 6 ), w h ere that co u rtd esc ri b ed p o st- B o o k e r d iscreti o n ary s ent ence s not bas ed on a s peci fi c G ui del i nes departur e pr ovi s i on as “var i ance s . ” I d. at932- 33. 8 anyt hi ng, he w oul d have done di ffe r ent l y at s ent enci ng had he had advanc e not i ce of

t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s i nt entt o varyfr om t he advi s or yG ui del i nes s ent ence . G ov’ tB r . at45. T he part i es , how ever , t ook s om ew hatdi ffe r entpos i t i ons at or al a rgu m ent
. B anks ’ s couns el conce ded att hatt i m e thatt he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s s ent ence i n t hi s cas e w as a “va r i ance ” bas ed on an e x e rc ise o f its d isc re tio n u n d e r B o o k e r a n d th e f a c to rs se t f

o rth in 1 8 U
. S

. C

. § 3 5 5 3 (a), an d co n ce d ed that b ec au se th e D istri ct C o u rt had enga ged i n a var i ance a n d n o ta depa r tur e undert he G ui del i nes , R ul e 32(h) w as nott r i gger ed and a dvance not i ce of t he 2 var i ance w as unnece s s ary . T he G overnm ent t ook t he pos i t i on t hat d istri ct co u rt s sh o u ld p rov ide a d v an ce n o ti ce o f their in tent to v ary fr om a G ui del i nes s ent enci ng r ange, reg ardl es s of w hethert hat var i ance i s upw ar d ordow nw ar d. O urr ev iew o f B ooker ’ s eff ect o n R u le 3 2 a n d e v o lv in g se n ten c in g ju risp ru d e n c e lea d s u s to concl ude the D i s t r i ctC our tw as notobl i gat ed t o pr ovi de B anks w ith a d v a n c e n o tice o f th e 3 -m o n th u p w a rd v a ria n c e in h is s ent ence , w her e thatvar i ance w as bas ed on appl i cati o n o f t he § 3553( a) fac t or s u n d erB ookerand noton a depa r tur e fr om t he G u id e lin e s . R ul e 32( h) w as a r es pons e t o t he Supr eme C our t ’ s deci s i on in B ur ns v. U ni t ed St at es , 501 U
. S. 129 ( 1991) , w her e the C ourt h e ld th a t an e a rlier v e r s io n o f R u le 3 2 re q u ire d d istric t co u rts to gi v e d ef endant s advanc e not i ce be for e enga gi ng i n su a sp o n te upw ar d departur es fr om G ui del i nes s ent ence s . I d. at136; U ni t ed St at es v. W al ker , 447 F. 3d 999, 1006 ( 7t h C i r . 2006)

. R ul e 32( h) w as adopt ed ata t i m e w hen court s coul d onl yavoi d a G ui del i nes r a n ge byd e p a r t i n g f

r o m th e Gu i d e l i n e s . Ho we v e r , t h e S u p r e me C o u r tm a d e c l e a r i n B o o k e r t h a t t h e G u i d e l i n e s a r e n o w a d v i s o r y. T h u s, d istric t co u rts, p o st-B o o k e r, ex e rc ise b ro a d d isc re tio n in im p o sin g se n te n c e s, so lo n g a s th e yb e g in w ith a p ro p e rlyU nder18 U
. S. C

. § 3553( a) , t he r el evantfac t or s t o be 3 cons i der ed ats ent enci ng ar e: “( 1) t he natur e and c i r cumst ance s of the o ff ens e and the h isto rya n d c h a ra c ter istics o f th e d e f e n d a n t; ( 2) t he nee d fort he s ent ence i m pos ed- (A ) to r efl ect t he ser i ou sness of the offen se, to prom ote res pect for the law , and t o p rovi de just puni s hm entfort he off

ens e; ( B ) t o aff

or d ad equat e det err ence t o cr i m i nal c o n d u c t; ( C ) t o pr ot ectt he publ i c fr o m fu r t hercr i m es of the defe ndant ; and ( D ) t o pr ovi de the def enda n t w i t h neede d educa t i onal orvocat i onal t r ai ni ng, m edi cal car e, or ot hercorr ect i onal t r eatm enti n t he mosteff ect i ve m an n er; ( 3) t he ki nds of s ent ence s avai l abl e; ( 4) t he ki nds of s ent ence and the sen tenc i ng r ange est abli shed f

or . . . t he ap pli cable c a teg o ryof o ffen se comm i t t ed by t he appl i cabl e cat egory of defe ndant as set f o rt h in th e g u id e lin e s . . . .”
9 cal cul at ed G ui del i nes r ange, ful l ycons i derthe br oad r ange of f a c to rs s e t f

o rth in 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 5 3 (a ), a n d a ll g ro u n d s p ro p e rly 3 advanc ed byt he parti es at s ent enci ng. See C ooper , 437 F. 3d at 329- 30. T hus , di s t r i ct c o u r t s cont i nue t o cons i deral l gr ounds pr oper l yadvanc ed byt he part i es ats ent enci ng, as t heydi d i n t he p a st, a n d th e y c o n tin u e to c o n sid e r th e G u id e lin e s ra n g e , w h ich is now advi s or y . W hathas change d pos t
- B ooker , i s t hats ent enci ng is a d iscreti o n ary ex erc ise, an d n o w inclu d es a rev iew o f the f ac tors s et for t h i n § 3553( a)

. T hes e fact or s ar e know n pr i ort o s ent enci ng. B eca us e def

endant s ar e aw ar e that di s t r i ct cour t s w i l l cons i dert he f a c to r s s e t f

o rth in § 3 5 5 3 (a ), w e b e liev e th e e lem e n t o f “ u n f a ir su rprise” that B u rns s o u g h t t o eli m inate is n o t prese n t. S ee W alke r, 4 4 7 F .3 d a t 1 0 0 7 (o b se rv in g th a t “d e f e n d a n ts a re o n n o ti c e p o stB ookert hats ent enci ng cour t s have di s cr et i on t o con s i deranyof t he fa ct or s s peci fi ed i n § 3553( a) ”) ; cf. U ni t ed St at es v. V aughn,Th e r i g h t o f v i c t i ms t o b e h e a r d i s g u a r a n t e e d b y t h e Cr i me 4 V i ct i m s ’ R i ght s A ct( “C V R A ”) , Pub. L
. N o. 108- 405, §§ 101- 104 ( 2004) ( codi fi ed at18 U
. S. C

. § 3771)

. T he r i ghti s i n t he natur e of a n in d e p e n d e n t r ig h t o f

a llo c u tio n a t s e n te n c in g . S e e 1 8 U .S .C . § 10 430 F. 3d 518, 5 2 4 ( 2d C i r . 2005) ( concl udi ng appl i cat i on of B ookert o cas es on dir ec t revi ew w as notex pos tfac t o vi ol at i on, o b se rv in g th a t “[j]u st a s a p p e llan ts h a d f a ir w a rn in g th a t th e ir conductw as cr i m inal, t heyal s o had fa i rw arni ng of the pot ent i al p e n a lti e s th e yf

a c e d

. . .” ) . T h u s, in th e w o rd s o f th e S e v e n th C i r c u i t , “ [ n ] o w t h a t B o o k e r h a s r e n d e r e d t h e G u i d e l i n e s a d v i s o r y, t he conce r ns t hat ani m at ed t he C our t ’ s deci s i on i n B ur ns no l onger appl y . ” W al ker , 447 F. 3d at1006. A ccor di ngl y , gi ven that defe ndan t s ar e aw ar e thatcour t s w i l l cons i dert he br oad r ange of fac t or s s etfor t h i n § 3553( a) ats ent enci ng, w e per cei ve none of t he “unfa i rs urpr i s e” c ons i der at i ons t hatm ot i vat ed the enac t m entof R u le 3 2 (h ). F u rth erm o re, th e re q u ir em en t of R u le 32 (h) tha t th e c o u rt s peci fy“anygr ound” of c ont empl at ed depa r tur e fr om t he G ui del i nes r ange w as des i gned forpr e- B ooker d epartur es , w hi ch w e re c o n stra in e d b y th e p ro v isio n s o f th e G u id e lin e s p e rta in in g to departur es . See G ui del i nes C hapt er5, Par tK
. T he G ui del i nes hav e no w beco m e adv i sory and t hey no l on ger li m i t t he groun ds a cour tcan c ons i derats ent enci ng. T hus , t he G ui del i nes are now o n ly o n e f

ac tor am o n g m an yw h ich c an inf luen ce a d iscreti o n ary se n ten c e . A p p lica tio n o f th e a d v a n c e n o tice re q u ir e m e n t o f R u le 3 2 (h) to d iscreti o n a rysen tenc e w o u ld elev ate the ad v isory s ent enci ng r ange t o a posi t i on of i m por t ance t hat i t no l ongercan e n jo y . S e e C o o p e r , 4 3 7 F .3 d a t 3 3 1 (re jec tin g a rg u m e n t th a t a w i t hi n- G ui del i nes s ent ence w as nece s s ar i l yr eas onabl e and obs ervi ng t hathol di ng ot herw i s e “w oul d come cl os e t o r es t or i ng t he mandat or ynatur e of t he gui del i nes exci s ed i n B ooker ”) ( ci t i ng U n ite d S ta te s v . C ro s b y , 3 9 7 F .3 d 1 0 3 , 1 1 5 (2 d C ir . 2 0 0 5 ))

. B ookercont empl at es t hatt he di s t r i ctcou r tw i l l i m pos e a di s cr et i onary sent ence af t erco n side rati o n o f th e a d v isory G u idelines , the g rou n d s ra ise d b yco u n sel, the d ef en d an t’ s al l ocut i on, vi ct i m s t at ement s , ot her e vi dence , and the fa ct or s s et 43771( a) ( 4) ( aff or di ng vi ct i m s a “r i ghtt o be r eas onabl yhear d atany publ i c pr ocee di ng i n t he di s t r i ctcour ti nvol vi ng r el eas e, pl ea, se n ten c in g , o r a n yp a ro le p ro c e e d in g ” ). U n d e r th e C V R A , co u rts m aynotl i m i tvi ct i m s t o a w r i t t en s t at ement
. See K enna v. U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ctC our t , 435 F. 3d 1011, 1017 ( 9t h C i r . 2006) (K ozinski , J. ) ( “L i m i tin g vict i m s t o w ri t t en im pact s t at em ents , w h ile a llo w in g th e p ro se c u to r a n d th e d e f e n d a n t th e o p p o rtu n ityto a d d re ss th e c o u rt, w o u ld tre a t v ictim s a s se c o n d a ryp a rticip a n ts in t h e s e n t e n c i n g p r o c e s s . Th e CVRA c l e a r l yme a n tt o ma k e v i c t i ms ful l par t i ci pant s . ”)

. G i ven thati tw ould b e im pos s i bl e t o pr edi ct w hats t at ement s vi ct i m s m i ghtoffe rats ent enci ng, i t w o u ld be unw or kabl e t o r equi r e di s t r i ctcour t s t o pr ovi de advanc e not i ce of th e ir in ten t to v a ryth e ir d isc re tio n a ryse n ten c e b a se d o n v ictim s t at ement s t hathad noty etbeen made. W e r ecogni ze thatt w o ot herci r cui t s have hel d t o t he 5 co n tr ary . U n it ed S tat es v . D av en p o rt , 4 4 5 F
. 3 d 3 6 6 , 3 7 1 (4th C ir

. 2 0 0 6 ); U n it ed S tat es v . D o zier, 4 4 4 F
. 3 d 1 2 1 5 , 1 2 1 6 -17 (10 th C ir

. 2006)

. W hi l e ac cor di ng due r es pectt o t he dec i s i ons of ours i s t er C i r cui t s , w e r ei t er at e thatourconcl us i on i s cons onantw i t h t he fa ct t hatpos t
- B oo k er, defe ndant s ar e on ful l not i ce thata s ent enci ng cour tw il l cons i dert he § 3553( a) fac t or s and i n doi ng s o, m ay exer ci s e i t s di s cr et i on t o vary fr om a G ui del i nes s ent ence i n a w ay th a t is n o t b a s e d o n a s p e c if ic G u id e lin e s d e p a rt u re p ro v is io n . 11 for t h i n § 3553( a)

. C ooper , 437 F. 3d at332. B ookerdoes not cont empl at e t hat t he cour t w i l l s om ehow arr i ve at i t s s ent ence pr i or t o s ent enci ng, and r equi r i ng advance n o ti ce of “anygr ound” bey ond t he fa ct or s s etfor t h i n § 3553( a) w oul d undoubt edl ypr ove to b e u n w o rk a b le

. T h e F irst, S e v e n th , E ig h th , an d E lev e n th C irc u its h a v e a ll concl uded t hat , pos t
- B ooker , a s ent enci ng cour tneed notpr ovi de ad v an ce n o ti ce o f a v arian ce – b ase d o n a re v iew o f th e c ase ’s hi s t ory an d co ns i der at i ons of the § 3553( a) fac t or s – fr om an a d v i s o r yG u i d e l i n e s s e n t e n c e . U n i t e d S t a t e s v . Ma t e o , 2 0 0 6 WL 5 1195676, at*1 ( 1st C ir

. M ay5, 2006) ( unpubl i s hed) ( di s t r i ct c o u rt’s f a ilu re to p ro v id e a d v a n c e n o tic e o f v a ria n c e n o t p lain erro r); W alke r, 4 4 7 F
. 3 d at 1 0 0 6 -07 ; U n it ed S tat es v . E g en b erg er, 424 F. 3d 803, 805 ( 8t h C i r . ) , cert
. deni ed, 126 S. C t
. 1106 ( 2006)W h il e B an k s d o es n o t r aise the issue o n a p p ea l, w e a re 6 s at i s fi ed the D i s t r i ctC our tengage d i n s uffi ci entr evi ew of the § 3553( a) fac t or s . See C ooper , 437 F. 3d at329. 12 (n o tice u n d e r R u le 3 2 (h ) n o t re q u ire d w h e re “ th e c o u rt p ro p e rly cal cul at ed the advi s or yG ui del i nes r ange, and onl y then, aft er cons i der i ng al l of the addi t i onal § 3553( a) fac t or s as r equi r ed by B ooker , di d t he di s t r i ctcour tent era s ent ence that w as above the advi s or yG ui del i nes r ange ) ; U ni t ed St at es v. Si m m er er , 156 Fed. A ppx. 124, 127- 28 ( 11t h C i r . 2005) ( pos t
- B ooker , fail ur e t o gi ve pr i or not i ce under R ul e 32( h) of a cont empl at ed upw ar d “var i ance ” f ro m th e G u id e lin e s s e n ten c in g r a n g e n o t p lain e rro r). W e jo in th e se c o u rts o f a p p e a ls a n d c o n c lu d e B a n k s w a s n o t en tit led to a d v a n c e n o tic e u n d e r R u le 3 2 (h ) o f th e D istric t C o u rt’s in ten t to varyi t s s ent ence fr om t he advi s or y G u ide l i nes s ent enci ng r ange w her e thatvar i ance w as bas ed on the C our t ’ s di s cr et i on under B o o k er a n d § 3 5 5 3 (a) an d n o t on a d ep arture f rom the a d v isory G ui del i nes r ange. N evert hel es s , i f a cour ti s cont empl at i ng a d ep arture, i t sho u ld co n ti n u e to g ive n o ti ce as itd id b ef o re B o o k er, s ee C ooper , 437 F. 3d at 327, and di s t r i ctcour t s s houl d be ca r eful t o ar t i cul at e w hether a s ent ence i s a departur e ora var i ance fr om an advi s or yG ui del i nes r ange. 6 B. In h is ne x t cl aim o f e rror, B an k s arg u es th e D is tr ic t C o u rt err ed byi s s ui ng an i n pers onam f o rf e itu re ju d g m e n t ag a in st h im in th e a m o u n t o f

$ 7 0 ,7 0 8 .5 9 , in d ire c t re latio n to th e p ro c e e d s o f h is m ai l fr aud cr i m es . B anks t akes the pos i t i on t hat( 1) t he D i s t r i ct C our tl acke d s t atut or y author i t y under 28 U
. S. C

. § 2461( c) t o i s s ue a cr i m i nal for fei tur e of hi s m ai l fr aud proc eeds ; and (2) t he D i s t r i ct C our tcoul d noti s s ue a f or fei tur e or derforan amountt hat excee ded B ank s’ s avai l able as set s att he t i m e of sen t encing. T hese are bot h is sues of fir sti m pre ss io n i n thi s C ou rt
. B ecause these i s s u e s p r e s e n tq u e s t i o n s o f l a w, we e x e r c i s e p l e n a r yr e v i e w. U n it ed S tat es v . L ed esm a-C u e sta, 3 4 7 F
. 3 d 5 2 7 , 5 3 0 (3d C ir

. 2 0 0 3 ). 1
.S ec ti o n 2 4 6 1 (c) is pa rt o f the C ivil A sset F o rfe itu re R ef o rm 7 A c t o f 2 0 0 0 (“ C A F R A ” ), P u b L . 1 0 6 -1 8 5 , § 1 6
. W e observe t hat§ 2461( c) w as amended on M ar ch 9, 2006, 8 and no w st at es: “I f a per s on i s char ged i n a cr i m i nal cas e w i t h a vi ol at i on of an A ct of C o n g ress f

o r w h ich th e civil o r crim inal fo rfe itu re of pr oper t yi s author i zed, the G overnm entm ayi ncl ude not i ce of t he for fei tur e i n t he i ndi ctm entori nform at i on pur s uant t o t he Feder al R ul es of C r i m i nal Pr ocedur e. I f the defe n d an t i s convi ct ed of the off ens e gi vi ng r i s e t o t he f o rf e itu re , the c o u rt sh a ll o rd e r th e f o rf e itu re o f th e p ro p e rty as par tof the s ent ence i n t he cr im inal ca s e pur s uantt o t he Feder al R ules o f C r i m i nal Pr ocedur e and s ect i on 3554 of t i t l e 18, U ni t ed St at es C ode. T he pr ocedur es i n s ect i on 413 o f th e C o n tro lled S u b sta n c e s A c t (2 1 U .S .C . 8 5 3 ) a p p lyto

13 T o p lac e th e iss u e o f

th e D istric t C o u rt’s sta tu to rya u th o rity t o i s s ue the i n p e rs onam f o r f e i tu r e j u d g me n ti n p e r s p e c t i v e , we cons i dert he appl i cabl e s t atut or yfr amew or k. I n t he s econd su p e rse d in g in d ictm e n t a n d its m o tio n f o r a fo rf e itu r e ju d g m e n t, t he G overnm entr el i ed upon 28 U

. S. C

. § 2461 (c) as gr ounds for obt ai ni ng cr i m i nal for fei tur e of the pr ocee ds of B anks ’ s m ai l fr aud proceed s. T he ap pli cable edi t i on of thatst atute r eads,

7

“ If a f o rf e itu re o f p ro p e rty is a u th o riz e d in c o n n e c tio n w ith a vi ol at i on of an A ctof C ongr es s , and anyper s on i s char ged i n an i ndi ctm entori nform at i on w i t h s uch vi ol at i on butno sp ec ifi c statuto ry p ro v isi o n is m ad e f o r crim inal fo rfe itu re u p o n co n v ict ion , the G o v ern m en t m ayi ncl u d e the fo rfe itu re i n t he i ndi ctm entori nform at ion in a ccor dance w i t h t he Feder al R ul es of C r i m i nal Pr ocedur e, and upon convi ct i on, th e c o u rt sh a ll o rd e r th e f o rf e itu re o f th e p ro p e rtyin acc or dance w i t h t he pr ocedur es s etfor t h i n s ect i on 413 of t he C ont r ol l ed Subs t ance s A ct( 21 U
. S. C

. 853) , ot hert han s ubs ect i on ( d) of thats ect i on. ” 2 8 U
. S

. C

. § 2 4 6 1 (c). 8al l s t ages of a c r i m i nal for fei tur e pr ocee di ng, exce ptt hat s ubs ect i on ( d) of such se ct i on appl i es onl y i n cas es i n w hi ch th e d e f e n d a n t is c o n v ic te d o f

a v io la tio n o f

s u c h A c t.” In r el evan tpart , 18 U
. S

. C

. § 9 82 st at es, 9 “§ 9 8 2
. C ri m inal fo rfe itu re ( a) ( 1) T he court , i n i m pos i ng s ent ence o n a per s on convi ct ed of an off

ens e i n vi ol at i on of s ect i on 1956, 1957, or1960 of thi s t i t l e, s hal l or der t hat t he per s on for fei tt o t he U n ited S tate s a n yp r o p e r ty , rea l o r p e rso n a l, i n v o lv e d in s u c h o f f e n s e , o ra n y p r o p e r t y t r a c e a b l e t o s u c h p r o p e r t y. ( 2) T he cour t , i n i m pos i ng s ent ence on a per s o n convi ct ed o f a v iolati o n o f, or a co n sp ir ac yto v iolate-- ( A ) s ect i on . . . 1 3 4 1 [m ai l fr aud]

. . . of thi s t i t l e, a f f e c tin g a f

in a n c ia l in s titu tio n . . . .” In r el evan tpart , 18 U
. S

. C

. § 9 81 st at es, 10 “§ 9 8 1
. C ivil fo rfe itu re ( a) ( 1) T he fol l ow i ng pr opert yi s s ubj ectt o for fei tur e t o t he U nit ed S t at es: ( C ) A nypr oper t y , r eal or per s onal , w hi ch cons t i tut es ori s der i ved fr om pr ocee ds t r ace abl e t o a vi ol at i on of .

. . anyoffe ns e const i tut i ng “s peci fi ed unl aw ful

14 A s per t ai ns t o m ai l fr aud p roc eeds , cr i m i nal for fei tur e for s uch pr ocee d s i s s p e c i f i c a l l y a ut hor i zed w hen s peci al ci rcum st ances are present , such as w hen t he m ai l fra u d a ffects a fi nanci al i ns t i tut i on, s ee 18 U
. S. C

. § 982( a)

. B eca us e no fi nanci al 9 in stitu tio n w a s in v o lv e d in th is ca se , the G o v e rn m e n t ac c o rd in g ly s eeks cr i m i nal for fei tur e for B anks ’ s m ai l fr aud pr ocee ds under28 U. S

. C. § 2 4 6 1 ( c ) t h r o u g h t h e c i v i l f o r f e i tu r e p r o v i s i o n , 1 8 U. S

. C. § 981( a) ( 1) ( C ) , w hi ch does notr equi r e anys peci al ci r cumst ance s 10a c tiv ity ” (a s d e f in e d in se c tio n 1 9 5 6 (c )(7 ) o f th is title ), o r a c o n s p ir a c yto c o m m it s u c h o f f e n s e .” Secti on 1956( c) ( 7) of Ti t l e 18 i n tur n r efe r ence s t he off ens es i dent i fi ed i n 18 U
. S. C

. § 1961( 1) , w hi ch l i s tof off ens es i ncl udes m ai l fraud w i t ho ut any l i m i t at i on t o m ai l fraud p erpetrat ed ag ai nst fi nan ci al i nst i tuti on s. 15 a s a p re re q u is ite to f

o rf e itu re f o r m a il f ra u d c ri m e s . B anks cont ends t hat 28 U
. S. C

. § 2461( c) does notauthor i ze s uch for fei tur e bec aus e 18 U
. S. C

. § 982( a) ( 2) ( A ) pr ovi des for cr i m i nal for fei tur e onl yi n s peci fi c ci r cumst ance s o f m ail fr aud ( i

. e. , m ai l fr aud perpetr at ed aga i n st f ina nci al i ns t i tut i ons ) and no su ch circu m stan ce s are p rese n t h ere . B an k s B r. at 48
. A s su p p o rt forhi s ar gum ent , B anks ci t es t o a di s t r i ctcour topi ni on, U ni t ed S tat es v . C roc e, 34 5 F
. S u p p . 2 d 4 9 2 (E

. D
. P a. 2 0 0 4 ) (“C roc e II”), in w h ich th a t c o u rt sta ted , “ 1 8 U .S .C . § 9 8 2 (a )(2 )(A ) is a sp e c if ic s t atut or ypr ovi s i on m ade f orcr i m i nal for fei tur e upon convi ct i on of m a il fra u d

. . . s o [ 2 8 U .S .C .] § 2 4 6 1 (c ) d o e s n o t au th o riz e u s to or dercr i m i nal for fei tur e of m ail fra ud pr ocee ds

. ” I d. at496; s ee al s o i d. at n. 9. T hus , w e m us t r es ol ve w hether28 U
. S. C

. § 2461( c) autho r i zes cr i m i nal for fei tur e of mai l fr aud pr ocee ds t hatar e not t he r es ul tof m ai l fr aud perpetr at ed agai ns ta fi nanci al i ns t i tut i on. T o in te rp re t th e s ta tu te , w e b e g in w ith its p la in la n g u a g e . In re A rm str o n g W o rl d Ind u s. , Inc
. , 4 3 2 F
. 3 d 5 0 7 , 5 1 2 (3 d C ir

. 2 0 0 5 ). A s c ri b in g p la in m e a n i n g t o th e w o rd s o f 2 8 U .S .C . § 246 1 (c), crim inal fo rfe itu re is no t perm itted u n less (1) a su b s t ant i ve pr ovi s i on exi s t s forci vi l for fei tur e of the cri m inal pr ocee ds at iss u e ; an d (2 ) th e re is n o sp e c if ic sta tu to ryp ro v isio n th a t p e rm its cr i m i nal for fei tur e of s uch pr ocee ds

. T hu s, w e r ead the s t atut e, e n a c te d e ig h t yea r s a f t e r C o n g re s s la s t a m e n d e d 1 8 U .S .C . § 982( a) ( 2) , as a “br i dge” or “gap- fi l l er ” betw een ci vi l and cr i m i nal for fei tur e, in tha ti tperm i t s cr i m i nal for fei tur e w hen no cr i m i nal f o rf e itu re p ro v isio n a p p lies to th e c rim e c h a rg e d a g a in st a p a rticu lar d e f

e n d a n t b u t civ il fo rf

e itu re f o r th a t ch a rg e d c rim e is nonethel es s author i zed. A ccor di ngl y , underourr eadi ng, § 2461( c) perm i t s cr i m i nal for fei tur e f o r g en er al m ai l fr aud bec aus e ( 1) 18T hus , § 2461( c) w oul d notbyi t s el f ena bl e cr i m i nal 11 forfei ture proceeds from m ai l fraud ag ai nstfi nan ci al i nst i tuti on s, beca us e a s t atut or y p rovi s i on forcr i m i nal for fei tur e of pr ocee ds fr om t hatki nd of m ail fra ud, 18 U
. S. C

. § 982( a) ( 2) ( A ) , al r eady exi s t s . See U ni t ed St at es v. T hom ps on, 2002 W L 31667859, at*2 ( N
. D
. N
. Y
. N ov. 26, 2002) ( di s al l ow i ng cr i m i nal for fei tur e of drug cr i m e pr ocee ds under§ 2461( c) beca us e cha r ged drug cri m e had as s oci at ed s t atut or ypr ovi s i on forcr i m i nal for fei tur e upon c o n v ic tio n ). 16 U .S .C . § 9 8 1 (a )(1 )(C ) a u th o riz e s c iv il fo rf e itu re f o r g e n e ra l m a il fr aud; and ( 2) no s t atut or ypr ovi s i on s peci fi cal l yauthor i zes cr i m i nal for fei tur e for g ener al m ai l fr aud. See U ni t ed St at es v. 11 Schl es i nger , 396 F. Supp. 2d 267, 275 ( E
. D
. N
. Y
. 2005) ( cons t rui ng § 2 4 6 1 (c) as “a b roa d ‘ga p -fil ler’” th at en ab les crim inal fo rfe itu re w h e n c iv il f

o rf e itu re is p e rm itte d ). T he d i stri ctcou rti n C roce I I, on w hich case B ank s r el i es, too k a d if

fe ren t, m o re restri cti v e v iew o f § 2 4 6 1 (c). T h at co u rt c o n c lu d e d th a t b yd ra f tin g 1 8 U .S .C . § 9 8 2 (a )(2 )(A ) to p e rm it cr i m i nal for fei tur e onl yform ai l fr aud carr i ed out agai ns tfi nanci al ins t i tut i ons , C ongr es s had conc l uded thatcr i m i nal for fei tur e for m ai l fr aud w as “onl yappr opr i at e w hen th e m ail fra ud aff ect ed a fin an cial i n sti tuti o n . ” 3 4 5 F
. S u p p . 2 d a t 4 9 6 n . 9
. In th at co u rt ’s vi ew , “[i ] ts eems hi ghl yunl i kel yt hat , i n pas s i ng t he br oad l anguage of § 2461( c) , C ongr es s i nt ended t o s il en tl yr emove t he l i m i t at i ons on cr i m i nal for fei tur e i n m ai l fr aud cas es t hat i th ad c a re f u lly in s e rt e d in to § 9 8 2 (a )( 2 )( A ).” Id

. A l t hough C r oce I I pr es ent s a pl aus i bl e construct i on of the s t atut e, w e ar e notper s uaded. Sect i on 2461( c) author i zes cr i m i nal for fei tur e w her e “a for fei tur e i s author i zed i n co n n ect i on w i t h a v io latio n o f a n A c t o f

C o n g re ss ,” w h ich A c t in th is c a se is th e c iv il f o rf e itu re sta tu te, 1 8 U .S .C . § 9 8 1 . S e c ti o n 9 8 1 in tu rn p e rm its f o rf e itu re o f p ro c e e d s f

ro m th e c ri m e s id e n tif

ie d i n 1 8 U .S .C . § 1956( c) ( 7)

. Sect ion 1 956( c) ( 7) i n tur n i ncl udes t he l i s tof cr i m es s etfo rt h in 18 U
. S. C

. § 1961( 1) , w hi ch l i s tof cr i m es i ncl udes
“ m a il f ra u d ,” n o t o n ly m a il f

ra u d “ a f f e c tin g a f in a n c ia l in s titu tio n .” A ccor di ngl y , w e r ead the pl ai n l anguage of § 2461( c) , byvi r tue of17 t he cha i n of cr os s - r efe r ence s l eadi ng t o § 1956( c) ( 7) and § 1 9 6 1 (1), t o ex p li cit lyp erm itcrim inal fo rfe itu re f o r gener alm a il fr aud, notj us tform ail fra ud agai ns tfi nanci al i ns t i tut i ons . See U ni t ed St at es v. L ebed, 2005 W L 2495843, at *8 ( E
. D
. Pa. O ct
. 7, 2005) ( concl uding tha t“byvi r tue of the cr os s r efe r ence fr om t he civil f o rfe itu re statute to the m o n eylaun d ering statu te (§ 1 9 5 6 (c)(7)) an d it s cro ss r ef ere n ce to th e R IC O statu te [§ 1 9 6 1 (1), li sti n g c ri m e s inc lud ing g en era l m ail fra u d ], crim inal fo rfe itu re m aynow be i nvoked forgener al i ns t ance s of m ai l and w i r e fr aud, s i nce thes e cr i m es do not cont ai n anys peci fi c s t atut or ypr ovi s i ons f o rc r i mi n a l f

o r f e i tu r e . ” )

. We r e we t o c o n c l u d e o t h e r wi s e , we w oul d be i gnor i ng § 2461( c) ’ s cr os s - r efe r ence t o a l i s tof cr i m es t hat i ncludes gen eral m ai l fraud, and w e are m i nd ful that “[i ]ti s a c a rd in a l p r in c ip le o f

sta tu to ryc o n stru c tio n th a t a s tatu te o u g h t, upon t he w hol e, t o be s o cons t rued that , i f i tcan be pr event ed, no cl aus e, s ent ence , orw or d s hal l be s uper fl uous , voi d, or in s ig n if ic a n t.” T R W In c . v . A n d re w s , 5 3 4 U .S . 1 9 , 3 1 (2 0 0 1 ). I n s um , w e r ej ectC r oce I I and r ead t he pl ai n l anguage of 28 U
. S. C

. § 2461( c) as perm i t t i ng cr i m i nal for fei tur e of pr ocee ds fr om g e n e ra l m a il f

ra u d b e c a u s e a s ta tu to ry p ro v is io n – 1 8 U .S .C . § 981( a) ( 2) ( C ) – perm i t s ci vi l for fei tur e of s uch pr ocee ds and no crim inal fo rfe itu re p rov isi o n ap p li es to g en era l m ail fra u d

. A cc o rd L ebed, 2005 W L 2495843, at *7- 8; Schl es i nger , 396 F. Supp. 2d at 2 7 5 (“[ U ]nd er the p lai n term s o f s ec . 2 4 6 1 (c), crim inal fo rfe itu re f o r m a il a n d w ir e f

ra u d is p e rm itte d .” ). T o t he ext entt hat the text of the s t atut e i s ambi guous , our concl us i on i s bol s t er ed by t he l egi s l at i ve hi s t or yof C A FR A and § 2 4 6 1
. B e f

o re C o n g ress e n ac ted C A F R A in 2 0 0 0 , if a f o rfe itu re s t atut e di d notauthor i ze a m ode of r ecovery , thats t atut e w as deemed t o author i ze c i vi l forf ei tur e onl y . C ongr es s t hen ena ct ed 2 8 U
. S

. C

. § 2 4 6 1 (c) to ex tend the av ail ab il ity o f c ri m inal fo rfe itu re t o cert ai n enumer at ed crimes thatl acke d an as s oci at ed cr i m i nal for fei tur e pr ovi s i on, obs ervi ng:

“ [ I]t m a k e s s e n se to e x ten d th e a v a ilab ili tyo f f o rf e itu re to th e se o th e r c ri m e s. R a th e r th e n sim p lym a k in g c iv il for fei tur e ava i l abl e foral l fede r al cr i m es , s om e of w hi ch do not gener at e cr i m i nal pr ocee ds , [C A FR A ] w oul d am end18 s ect i ons 981( a) ( 1) and 982( a) ( 2) of t it le 18 t o ext end pr ocee ds for fei tur e ( bot h ci v il and cr i m i nal ) t o t he cr i m es e n u m e ra te d in th e m o n e yla u n d e ri n g s t a t u te , 1 8 U .S .C . § 1 9 5 6 (c )( 7 ).” H .R . R e p . 1 0 5 -3 5 8 , at * 3 5 (1 9 9 7 ); se e a lso id

. (“ H .R . 1 9 6 5 w o u ld amend se ct i on 2461 of t i t l e 28 t o gi ve the governm entt he opt i on o f p u rsuin g crim inal fo rfe itu re as an alt ern ati v e to civ il fo rfe itu re i f ci vil forfei ture i s ot herw i se a u t ho ri zed.”)

. T hu s, C on gress i nt ended t o expand the ava i l abi l i t yof cr i m i nal for fei tur e t o t he co m p reh en sive li st of

crim es re fe ren ce d in 1 8 U
. S

. C

. § 1 9 5 6 (c)(7), w hich l i sti ncludes gener alm ai l fr aud, notonl ym ai l fr aud p e rp e tr a te d a g a in s t a f

in a n c ia l in s titu tio n . T h e in ten t to p ro v id e f

o r c rim in a l f

o rf e itu re in g e n e ra l m a il fr aud cas es i s fur t herdemonstr at ed byC ongr es s ’ s deci s i on i n 2000 t o am en d the ci vi l for fei tur e s t atut e, 18 U
. S. C

. § 981, bys t r i ki ng the lan g u ag e “ af

fe cti n g fin an cial i n sti tuti o n s” f o r m a il a n d w ir e fr aud cr i m es and i ns er t i ng l anguage perm i t t i ng ci vi l for fei tur e for t he cr i m es l i s t ed i n 18 U
. S. C

. § 1956( c) ( 7)

. See Pub. L
. 106- 185, at§ 20 ( 2000)

. I n ourvi ew , C ongr es s ’ s expans i on o f the cr i m es f o r w h ich c iv il f

o rf e itu re is av a ilab le tak e n in c o n ju n c tio n w ith its deci s i on t o enac t 28 U
. S. C

. § 2461( c) , w hi ch broa dened the r ange of cr i m es for w hi ch cr i m i nal for fei tur e w as avai l abl e, can onl ybe vi e wed a s i n t e n t t o ma k e c r i mi n a l f o r f e i tu r e e s s e n t i a l l ycoext ens i ve w i t h ci vi l fo r fei tur e. A ccor di ngl y , w e conc l ude the l egi s l at i ve hi s t or yof 28 U
. S. C

. § 2461( c) pr ovi des addi t i onal s uppor tforourr eadi ng of t he s t atut e and ourul t i m at e conc l us i on t hatt he D i s tr i ctC our thad s t atut or yauthor i tyt o i s s ue the in pers onam c ri m in a l f

o rf e itu re ju d g m e n t. 2. In hi s second at t a c k o n the D i stri ctC ou rt ’s i n pers onam fo rfe itu re o rde r, B an k s tak es th e p o sit ion that the D istric t C o u rt coul d n o ti s s u e a c r i mi n a l f o r f e i tu r e o r d e rf

o ra n a mou n tt hat exce eded the val ue of hi s as s et s att he t i m e of s en t enci ng. See B anks B r . at50- 55 ( ci t i ng U ni t ed St at es v. C r oce, 334 F. Supp. 2d 781 ( E
. D
. P a. 2 0 0 4 ) ( “C r oce I ”) )

. T he C r oce I cour tr eas oned, bas ed on a r evi ew of t he hi s t or yof for fei tur e, t hata def endantw hoA s f u rth e r e v id e n c e th e sta tu te w a s n o t in ten d e d to lim it 12 fo rfe itu res to tho se a ssets av ail ab le at th e ti m e o f a fo rfe itu re o rde r, w e obs erve t hat 18 U
. S. C

. § 853( o) s t at es t hat“[t ] he pr ovi s i ons of this sec t i on s hal l be l i ber al l ycons t rued t o eff ectuat e i t s r emedi al purpos es . ” B yr equi r i ng a def endantt o r etur n his i l l i ci tgai ns w i t houtr egar d t o hi s s ol vency , w e bel i eve the for fei tur e j udgm ent i s s ued i n t hi s cas e serves t he r emedi al purpos es of 18 U

. S. C

. § 853 b y c o m b a tin g m a il fra u d sc h e m e s a n d d e ter rin g th o se w h o w o u ld com m i tsuch cri m es. 19 h a d o b tain e d a n d su b se q u e n tlyd iss ip a ted u n law f u l p ro c e e d s c o u ld notbe s ubj ectt o a for fei tur e or derfort hos e now - di s s i pat ed pr ocee ds beca us e one can not for fei t t hat w hi ch she doe s notow n. S e e 3 3 4 F .S u p p . 2 d a t 7 9 4 . B a se d o n o u r re v iew o f th e a p p lica b le s t atut es , w e di s agr ee w i t h B anks and r ej ectt he r eas oni ng of C r oce I. I n 28 U
. S. C

. § 246 1 ( c ) , Con g r e s s s t at ed t hat cr i m i nal f o rf e itu re s a re to b e c a rrie d o u t p u rsu a n t to th e p ro c e d u re s s e t f o rth i n 18 U
. S. C

. § 853. Sect i on 853 s t at es t hatt he amount of a cr i m i nal for fei tur e i s di r ect l y r el at ed t o t he amountof the cr i m i nal pr ocee ds : “[m]a ndat or y for fei tur e i s conce r ned notw i t h how m uch an i ndi vi dual has butw it h h ow m uch he r ece i ved i n connec t i on w i t h t he comm i s s i on of the cr i m e. ” U ni t ed S tat es v. C as ey , 444 F
. 3d 10 71 , 10 77 (9th C i r. 20 06 ) ( ci t i ng 18 U
. S

. C

. § 8 53 ). T hu s, “[w ]he n a d ef

en d an t has b ee n co n v ict ed o f c o m m itti n g $ 1
. 6 m i l l i on i n m oneyl aunder i ng offe ns es . . . t he governm enthas pr oved b e y o n d a re a so n a b le d o u b t th a t itis e n tit led to $ 1 .6 m ill io n in cr i m i nal for fei tur e. ” U ni t ed St at es v. V oi gt , 89 F.3d 1 0 5 0 , 1084 ( 3 d Ci r . 1 9 9 6 )

. Gi v e n t h a t § 8 5 3 d o e s n o t c o n t a i n a n yl anguage l i m i t i ng t he amount of m oney avai l abl e i n a for fei tur e or der t o t he v a lu e o f th e a ss e ts a d e f

e n d a n t p o ss e ss e s a t th e tim e th e o rd e r is i s s ued, w e thi nk i tcl eart hatan i n p e rs o n am forf ei tur e j udgm ent m aybe en t ered for the fu l l am ou nt of the cri m i nal pr oceed s. 12 I n t h e i n t e r e s to f

c l a r i t y , we e mph a s i z e t h a tt h e Di s t r i ct C o u rt o rd e re d a f

o rf e itu re ju d g m e n t i n pers onam . T he i n pers onam des i gnat i on di s t i ngui s hes t hi s j udgm entfr om one i n r em . S ee U n it ed S tat es v . S an d ini, 8 1 6 F
. 2 d 8 6 9 , 8 7 2 -73 (3d C ir

. 1 9 8 7 );20 U ni t ed St at es v. H al l , 434 F. 3d 42, 59 ( 1s tC i r . 2006) ( “cr i m i nal for fei tur e i s a s anct i on agai ns tt he i ndi vi dual defe ndantr athert han agai ns tt he pr oper t yi t s el f”) ( ci t at i ons om i t t ed)

. Fur t herm or e, t he i n pers onam f

o r f e i tu r e j u d g me n tma ya l s o b e d i s t i n g u i s h e d f r o m a g e n e ra l ju d g m e n t i n pers onam . T h e ju d g m e n t i n pers onam h e re is o n e in f o rf e i t u r e a n d is lim ite d b yth e p ro v is io n s o f 2 1 U .S .C . § 853( a) t o: “( 1) anypr oper t y cons t i tut i ng, or der i ved fr om anypr ocee ds t he per s on obt ai ned, di r ect l yor i ndi r ect l y , as a r es ul tof s uch v io latio n ; ( 2) a n y of the per s on’ s pr oper t yus ed, ori nt ended t o be us ed, i n anym anner o r p art , t o comm i t , ort o fac i l i t at e the c o m m is s io n o f

, s u c h v io la tio n s ; . . . .” 21 U
. S. C

. § 853( a)

. I n t he eve ntt hatpr oper t yt r ac eabl e t o t he c rim e is n o t av a ilab le, th e C o u rt m a yd ire c t f o rf e itu re o f “ su b stitu te p r oper t y ” s ubj ect t o t he condi t i ons s et out i n 21 U
. S. C

. § 8 5 3 (p). T h a t p ro v isio n a p p lies , h o w e v e r, o n lyif th e tra c e a b le p ro p e rty : “A

. C annotbe l ocat ed upon the exe r ci s e of due di l i gence ; B . H a s b e e n tr a n s f

e rr e d o r s o l d t o , o r d e p o s ite d w ith , a th ird p a rty ; C . H a s b e e n p lac e d b e y o n d th e ju risd ictio n o f th e C o u rt; D
. H as b ee n su b stan ti all yd im inishe d in v alue ; or E
. H as been c om m i ngl ed w i t h ot herpr oper t yw hi ch ca nnot b e d iv id e d w ith o u t d if

f ic u lty.” 2 1 U
. S

. C

. § 8 5 3 (p). Fe d era l R u le of C ri m inal P roc e d u re 3 2
. 2 sets o u t th e step s to b e f o ll o w ed in fo rfe itu re p roc ee d ing s. It i s appar ent , t her efor e, t hat the sco pe of i n pers onam ju d g m e n t in f o rf e itu re is m o re lim ited th a n a g e n e ra l ju d g m e n t i n pers onam . W e o b se rv e th a t ad o p tin g B a n k s’s p o sitio n w o u ld p e rm it defe nd ants w ho u n law full yob t ai n p roceeds t o d i ssi pate tho se pr ocee ds and avoi d l i abi l i t y for t hei r i l l

- got t en gai ns . Sever al ot her co u rt s o f a p p ea ls ha v e reje c te d B an k s’s v iew o f f o rfe itu re. I n U ni t ed S tat es v. H al l , t he Fi r s tC i r cui tobs erved thata money j udgm entperm i t s t he G overnm entt o col l ecton a for fei tur e or der “eve n i f the def

endant does nothave s uffi ci entfunds t o covert heIn r el evan tpart , 17 U
. S

. C

. § 5 06 st at es, 13 “( a) C r i m i nal i nfr i ngement
. – ( 1) I n gener al

. – A ny per s on w ho w i l l ful l yi nfr i nges a copyr i ghts hal l be puni s hed as pr ovi ded under s ect i on 2 3 19 of t i t l e 18, i f the i nfr i ngementw as comm i t t ed – ( A ) forpurpos es of comm er ci al advant age or

21 forfei tur e a t t he t i me of c on vi c t i on . ” 43 4 F. 3d a t 59
. The F i rs t C ir cu it w en t o n to no te that p erm itti n g a m o n ey jud g m e n t a s p art of a f or fei tur e or der“pr event s a [c r i m i nal ] fr om r i ddi ng hi m s el f of hi s i l l

- got t en gai ns t o avoi d t he for fei tur e s anct i on. ” I d. T he Seventh C i r cui tr eac hed t he s ame concl us i on i n U ni t ed St at es v. B a k e r, 2 2 7 F .3 d 9 5 5 (7 th C ir. 2 0 0 0 ), w h e re it r e a so n e d th a t a for fei tur e or der “pl ace s a j udgm ent l i en agai ns t [def endant ] fort he bal ance of hi s pr i s on t erm and bey ond. ” I d. a t 9 7 0
. M o r e r e c e n t l y, th e N in th C irc u it co n c lu d e d in U n ited S tate s v . C a se yth a t a defe n d an t’ s l ack of

as s et s att he t i m e of hi s convi ct i on does not a llo w h im to sid e ste p a f o rf e itu re ju d g m e n t in th e a m o u n t o f h is cr i m i nal pr ocee ds : “money j udgm ent s ar e appr opr i at e under § 853, e v e n in c a se s o

f in so lve n t d e

fen da n ts .” 4 4 4 F .3 d a t 1 0 7 7 (e m p h a sis a d d e d ); s e e a ls o U n ite d S ta te s v . A m e n d , 7 9 1 F .2 d 1 1 2 0 , 1 1 2 7 n .6 ( 4t h C i r . ) , cert
. deni ed, 479 U
. S. 930 ( 1986) ( obs ervi ng t hatunder § 853, “the governm entneed nothave of fer ed evi dence t hatt he forfei t able asset s w ere s t i l l i n ex i st ence a tt he ti m e of [ defe nd ant’ s] c o n v ictio n ” ). A c c o rd in g ly , w e jo in th e se c o u rts o f a p p e a ls in concl udi ng t hat i n pers onam f o rf e itu re ju d g m e n ts are a p p ro p ria te under18 U
. S. C

. § 8 53, even w her e the amountof the j udgm ent exce eds t he defe ndant ’ s avai l abl e as s et s att he t i m e of c onvi ct i on. C. N ex t, B an k s arg u es th e e v iden ce w as in su ff ici en t t o su p p o rt hi s convi ct i on forcr i m i nal copyr i ghti nfr i ngement
. B anks t akes th e p o sitio n th a t th e G o v e rn m e n t d id n o t p ro v e , a s is n e c e ss a ryto co n v ictu n d er 1 7 U
. S

. C

. § 5 0 6 (a), that all o f th e it em s o f so ftw are 13pr i vat e fi nanci al gai n; ( B ) byt he r epr od u ct i on ordi s t r i but i on, i ncl udi ng byel ectr oni c mean s, dur i ng any 180 -dayper i od, of 1 orm or e copi es or phonor ecor ds of 1 orm or e copyri ght ed w o rks, w h ich h av e a total r etail v alue o f m o re th a n $ 1 ,0 0 0 . . . .”

22 w i t h w hi ch he w as char ged i n t he s econd s upersed ing i ndi ctm ent w ith c o p y in g w e re in f

a c t c o p yrig h ted w o rk s. B e c a u se B a n k s d id notar gue thi s t heory befor e t he D i s t r i ct C our t i n hi s or al m ot i on for acqui t t al , s ee A pp. 1140- 41, w e r evi ew onl yforpl ai n err or . U ni t ed S ta te s v . W o lf

e , 2 4 5 F .3 d 2 5 7 , 2 6 0 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 1 ). U ndert hi s s t andar d, befor e w e ca n corr ectan err ornot r ai s ed att r i al , w e m us t fi nd: ( 1) an err or ; ( 2) t hati s pl ai n; and ( 3) t hataff ect ed s ubs t ant i al r i ght s . U ni t ed St at es v. D obs on, 419 F. 3d 23 1, 23 6 ( 3d Ci r . 20 05 ) ( c i t i ng U ni t e d St a t e s v. O l ano , 507 U. S. 7 2 5 , 7 3 3

- 3 5 ( 1 9 9 3 ) )

. I f a l l t h r e e o f t h e s e c o n d i t i o n s a r e me t , we m a y , in o u r d isc re tio n , g ra n t re lief , b u t o n ly if “ th e e rro r se rio u sly aff ect s t he fa i r nes s , i nt egr i t y , orpubl i c r eput at i on of [the] j udi ci al p ro c e e d in g s .” Id . (c ita tio n s o m itte d ). W ith o u r c o n stra in e d sta n d a rd o f re v iew in m in d , w e tu rn to t he evi dence offe r ed att r i al

. T he G overnm entoffe r ed the t es t i m onyof an ant i pi r acy s peci al i s t as s oci at ed w i t h t he M i cr os oft company , w ho t es ti fied t hatB anks ’ s copi es of the M i cr os oft s oftw ar e i n ques t i on w er e count er fei t , t es t i m onyt hatw as not r ebut t ed, and s t at ed herbel i ef thatM i cr os oft ’ s copyr i ght s cover ed al l of the s oftw ar e pr oduct s ati s s ue. Fu rt h erm or e, t he ant i pi r acy sp e c ialist te stif

ied th a t M icr o so f

t s e n t ce a se -a n d -d e sis t lette rs to B anks , w hi ch l et t er s w er e s entonl yt o i ndi vi dual s w ho have al l egedl y i nfr i nged M i cr os oft s oftw ar e. W e ar e per s uaded t hatt he j ur y ’ s concl us i on fr om t hi s evi dence t hatt he s oftw ar e i n ques t i on w as copyr i ght ed w as noterr orand, i n anyevent , gi ven the t e s t i mo n y , wa s n o ta n e r r o rt h a twa s p l a i n . Ac c o r d i n g l y , we concl ude B anks has not s how n t he G overnm ent ’ s evi dence t hatt he s oftw ar e i n ques t i on w as cover ed bycopyr i ghtw as s o i ns uffi ci entT i t l e 18, s ect i on 513( a) r eads 14 “W hoever m ak es , ut t er s orpos s es s es a count er fei t ed s ecur i t y of a St at e or a pol i t i cal s ubdi vi s i on t her eof orof an organiza tio n, or w ho ever m akes, utt ers or possesses a for ged s ecur i t yof a St at e or pol i t i cal s ubdi vi s i on t her eof or of an or gani zat i on, w i t h i nt entt o decei v e anotherper s on, or gani zat i on, orgovernm ents hal l be fi ned undert hi s t i t l e or im p ri s o n e d f

o r n o t m o re th a n te n y e a rs , o r b o th .”

23 as to co n sti tute p lai n erro r. D. B anks nextal l eges t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s j ur yi ns t ruct i on re g a r d in g h is c h a rg e o f u tterin g a n d p o ss e ss in g c o u n ter f e it s ecur i t i es , under18 U
. S. C

. § 513( a) , cons t i tut ed r ever s i bl e err or 14 b e c a u se th e in stru c tio n c o n stru c tiv e lya m e n d e d h is in d ictm e n t. B anks B r . at16. B eca us e B anks di d not obj ectt o t hi s i ns t ruct i on at tr i al , w e re vi ew i t onl y for pl ai n err or . D obs on, 419 F. 3d at236. A co n stru c tive am en d m en t of an ind ict m en t occ u rs w h ere a def endanti s depr i ved of hi s “s ubs t ant i al r i ght t o be t r i ed onl yon c h a rg e s p re s e n te d in a n in d ic tm e n t r e tu rn e d b ya g ra n d ju ry.” U n it ed S tat es v . S ym e, 2 7 6 F
. 3 d 1 3 1 , 1 4 8 (3d C ir

. 2 0 0 2 ) (B ec k er, J. ) (cit ing U n it ed S tat es v . M il ler, 4 7 1 U
. S

. 1 3 0 , 1 4 0 (19 8 5 )). C ons t ruct i ve amendm ent s ar e “pr es um pt i vel ypr ej udici al under p la in e rr o r r e v ie w .” S ym e , 2 7 6 F .3 d a t 1 5 5
. C ountSi x of B anks ’ s i ndi ctm entchar ged hi m w i t h ut t er i ng a n d p o ss e ss in g c o u n ter f e it and for ged s ecur i t i es i n vi ol at i on of 18 U
. S. C

. § 513( a)

. A pp. 1401. T he j ur yi ns t ru ct i ons , t r acki ng t he w or di ng of t he st atut e, i nform ed the j ur yt hatB anks coul d be found g u iltyf o r utte rin g a n d p o ss e ss in g c o u n ter f e it orforged securi t i es. A p p . 1 2 6 4 -6 5 , 1 2 6 7
. W e cons i der ed t hi s i s s ue i n U ni t ed St at es v. C us um ano, 943 F. 2d 305 ( 3d C i r . 1991)

. I n t hatcas e, t he def endantw as i ndi ct ed undera s t atut e t hatpr es ent ed mul t i pl e r out es t o a convi ct i on i n t he

### Inrelev ant p art, § 1 5 1 2 read s, 15



### “ (b) Whoe ve r

knowi ngl y

us e s i nt i mi dat i on, th re at e ns , or c orr uptl y pe r s ua de s anothe r

pe r s on, or att e m

pt s t o do s o, or en g ag es inmislead in g co n du ct to w ardan o th er p erso n , w ith i nt e nt t o – ( 2) c aus e or

i nduc e any

pe r s on t o – 24 d isju n c tiv e . A s in th is c a se , a lth o u g h th e in d ictm e n t w a s w ritten in t he conj unct i ve, t he di str i ctcour tchar ged the j ur yi n t he d isju n c tiv e . O n a p p e a l, C u su m a n o a rg u e d th e d istric t co u rt sh o u ld have c har ged the j ur yi n t he conj unct i ve. W e r ej ect ed that arg u m ent , obs ervi ng t hat“the gene r al rul e i s t hatw hen a j ury re tu rn s a g u iltyv e rd ict o n a n in d ictm e n t c h a r g in g se v e ra l ac ts in t he conj unct i ve . . . t he ver di cts t ands i f the evi dence i s s uffi ci ent w i t h r es pect t o any of t he act s char ged, ” i d. at 311, and h eld t hat t he rul e ext ended to c as es w her e the i ndi ctm enti s i n t he c o n ju n c tiv e , b u t th e ju ry i n s tru c tio n s w e re in th e d is ju n c tiv e . Id

. H e r e , l i k e Cus u ma n o , whi l e Ba n k s ’ s i n d i ctm entw as phr as ed i n t he conj unct i ve, t he juryi ns t ruct i ons – w hi ch tr acke d t he l anguage of the s t atut e – w ere phr as ed i n t he di s j unct i ve. Fur t herm or e, B anks does notar gue the evi denc e w as i ns uffi ci ent w i t h r es pectt o anyof the ac t s char ged under18 U
. S. C

. § 513. See C u su m a n o , 9 4 3 F .2 d a t 3 1 1 . A c c o rd in g ly , w e p e rc e iv e n o p lain e r r o r i n t h e Di s t r i c tC o u r t ’ s j u ryi n s t ru c t i o n s r e g a r d i n g 1 8 U. S

. C. § 513. E
. B anks next ar gues t hatt he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s j ur yi ns t ruct i on on t he w i t nes s t amper i ng char ge atC ountSeven w as defe ct i ve beca us e the D i s t r i ctC our tj udge di d no t instruc tt he j ur yon t he r equi r ement , r ece nt l ycl ar i fi ed byt he Supr eme C our ti n A r t hur A n d e rse n L L P v . U n ited S tate s, 1 2 5 S . C t. 21 2 9 ( 2 0 0 5 ), th a t a convi ct i on under18 U
. S. C

. § 1512( b) ( 2) ( A ) r equi r es t her e be a nexus betw een the per s uas i on B anks al l egedl y di r ect ed atD o and a p arti cu lar p roc ee d ing

. B ec au se B an k s d id n o t o b ject to th e jury 15

### (A) withh old tes ti m ony , or withh old a re cord, do cum ent, or other obj ec t, from an offi c i a lpr oc e e di ng. ”

25 i n s t ru c t i o n a tt r i a l , we a r e c o n s t r a i n e d t o p l a i n e r r o rr e v i e w, D o b so n , 4 1 9 F .3 d a t 2 3 6 , an d f u rth e r n o te th a t “[ i]t is a ra re c a se in w hi ch an i m pr operi ns t ruct i on w i l l j us t i fyr ever s al of a c r i m i nal c o n v ic tio n w h e n n o o b

j e c tio n h a s b e e n m a d e in th e tr ia l c o u rt .” H e n d e rs o n v . K ib b e , 4 3 1 U .S . 1 4 5 , 1 5 4 (1 9 7 7 ). In A rth u r A n d e rse n , the S u p r e m e C o u rt m a d e c lea r th a t a pr o sec u ti on undert hi s s ame st atut e ca nnots ucce ed i f the G o v e rn m e n t f

a ils to sh o w a “ n e x u s b e tw e e n th e ‘p e rsu a sio n ’ to [ i mp e d e ] a n d a n yp a r t i c u l a rp r o c e e d i n g . ” 1 2 5 S

. Ct

. a t2 1 3 6
. As t he Second C i r cui t r ece nt l y obs erved i n t he w ake of A rt h ur A nder s en, “[t ] he t ouchs t one fort he nexus r equi r ement , t her efor e, i s an ac tt ake n that w oul d have the natur al and pr obabl e ef fec tof i nt er fer i ng w i t h a j udi ci al orgr and j ur ypr ocee di ng t hatcons t i tut es t he admi ni s t r at i on of j us t i ce; t hat is , t he ac tm us thave a r el at i ons hi p i n t i m e, caus at i on, orl ogi c w i t h the j udi ci al pr ocee di ngs . ” U ni t ed S t at es v. Q uat t r one, 441 F. 3d 153, 171 ( 2d C ir . 2 0 0 6 ). W e turn t o the j uryi nst ructio n s in t his case. T he w i t ness tam p e rin g in stru c tio n re a d , in r e lev a n t p a rt, as f o llo w s: “.

. . T he s econd elem ent t he G overnm entm us tpr ove bey o n d a r e a s o n a b l e d o u b ti s t h a tt h e Def e n d a n ta c t ed know i ngl yand w i t h t he s peci fic inte ntt o caus e ori nduce anyper s on t o w i t hhol d a rec o r d documentorot herobj ect fr om an off

i ci al proc ee d ing. B y‘ s peci fi c i nt ent , ’ I m ean t hat t he D efe ndantm us thave a ct ed w i t h t he unl aw ful i nt ent t o caus e ori nduce W arr en D o t o w i t hhol d evi dence fr om an offi ci al pr ocee di ng. I t i s notnece s s aryfort he G overnm ent t o pr ove t he D efe ndant knew he w as br eaki ng anypar t i cul ar cr i m i nal l aw , norneed the g o vernm entpr ove thatt he D efe ndantknew t hatt he o ff ic i al pr ocee di ng w as befor e a fede ral grand jury

. A n o ffi ci al proceed i ng i nclud es aA r t hurA nder s en i s perhaps di s t i ngui s habl e bec aus e the 16 di s t r i ctcour ti n that ca s e l ed the j ur yt o bel i eve thatno nexus b etw een t he per s uas i on and anypar t i cul arpr ocee di ng w as necessaryt o co nv i ct
. S ee 12 5 S

. C t
. at21 36 -37; see al so Q uat t r one, 441 F. 3d at180- 81 & 180 n. 27 ( vaca t i ng convi ct i on for juryins tructi o n ’s l ac k o f n ex u s req u ir em en t; instruction rea d “the re i s no r equi r em ent

ther e be a nexus betw een the def enda n t’ s 26 p roc ee d ing b ef

o re a fe d era l gran d jur y . T h e g ran d jury pr ocee di ng need not be pendi ng or about t o be i ns t i tut ed at t he t i m e of the off

ens e. ” A pp . 1 2 7 1

- 7 2
. Fo l l o wi n g a d i s c u s s i o n o f a t t e mpt , t h e Di s t r i ct C o u rt in s tru c te d , “T h u s, in order t o p rove t he o ffen se of att em pted w i t ness t amper i ng . . . i t i s nece s s ary t hat t he t ot al i t y of the evi dence of the D efe ndant ’ s obj ect i ve act i ons , w hol l y apartfr om any evidence of his st at e of m i nd , be co nsi st ent w i t h the purpo se of the comm i s s i on of the cr i m e of w i t nes s t amper i ng. ” A p p . 1 2 7 3 -7 4
. W i t h our r es t r i ct i ve s t andar d of r evi ew i n m i nd, w e per cei ve no err orw i t h t he j ur yi ns t ruct i ons i n t hi s cas e, and conc l ude that A rth u r A n d e rse n d o e s n o t co m p e l a d if f e re n t co n c lu s io n . A s is evi dent , t he j ur yw as i ns t ruct ed thatB anks coul d be found gui l t yof w i t nes s t amper i ng onl yi f he a ct ed w i t h t he s peci fi c i nt ent t o i nduce D o t o w i t hh o ld ev i dence fr om an off i ci al pr ocee di ng, and that B anks di d nothave t o i nt end t o aff ecta gr and j ur ypr ocee di ng – o th e r typ e s o f p ro c e e d in g s w o u ld su f f ice

. A p p . 1 2 7 2
. W e re a d th is in s tru c tio n a s re q u ir in g th e j u r y t o f in d s o m e c o n n e c tio n – i.e ., a nexus – betw een B anks ’ s act i ons and an of fi ci al pr ocee di ng i n t hat B a n k s c o u ld n o t b e c o n v icte d u n les s th e ju ryf o u n d h e in ten d e d to per s uade D o t o i m pede a n offi ci al pr ocee di ng, w hi ch off i ci al pr ocee di ng – gi ven D o’ s emai l r egar di ng hi s s ubpoena – Banks w as w el l aw ar e of. T hus , w e per cei ve no pl ai n err ori n t he D i s t r i ct C our t ’ s w i t nes s t amper i ng i ns t ruct i on as r evi ew ed aga i ns tA r t hur A nder s en. 16co n d u ct an d the f ed er a l p roc ee d ing su ch that the d ef en d an t’ s conductw oul d have ha d a natur al and pr obabl e ef fec tof i nt er fer i ng w i t h the fe de r a l pr oc e e di ng ” ) ( e mpha s i s a dd e d)

. U nl i ke t hese c a se s, th e ju ryin stru c tio n in th is c a se d id n o t d ire c t th e ju ryto rea ch a g u il tyv erd ictw ith o u t r eg ard to a n ex u s b etw ee n B an k s’s c o n d u c t a n d th e o f

f ic ia l p ro c e e d in g . W e o b se rv e th a t th e D istric t C o u rt d o c k e t is re p lete w ith 17 pr o s e m ot i ons t hat B anks fi l ed w hi l e re pr es ent ed by couns el

. See, 27 F. N e x t, B a n k s c laim s th e D istric t C o u rt c o m m itt e d re v e rsib le err orbyfai l i ng t o rul e on w hathe al l eges w as a mot i on fors el fr epr es ent at i on, docket ed by t he D i s tr i ct C our ton J anuary28, 2005. B anks B r . at26. A s t o t hi s i s s ue, w e exe r ci s e pl enaryr evi ew over t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s l egal concl us i ons and r evi ew i t s fac tual fi ndi ngs forcl earerr or . U ni t ed St at es v. Pepper s , 302 F. 3d 120, 1 2 7 (3d C ir

. 2 0 0 2 ). I n e v a l u a t i n g a d i s t r i c tc o u r t ’ s t r e a t m e n to f a d e f e n d a n t 's re q u e st to a c t pro se att r i al , Pepper s , 302 F. 3d at 1 32, and at sen tenc ing , cf

. U n it ed S tat es v . S alem o , 6 1 F
. 3 d 2 1 4 , 2 1 9 (3d C ir

. 1 9 9 5 ), th is C o u rt a p p lies a th re e -ste p a n a ly sis . T h is a n a ly sis r e q u i r e s t h a tt h e Cou r t( 1 ) i n q u i r e i n t o whe t h e rt h e d e f e n d a n th as as s er t ed hi s des i r e t o pr ocee d pro se cl ear l yand unequi vocal l y ; ( 2) i nqui r e i nt o w hethert he def endantunder s t ands “the natur e of the charges, t he rang e of p ossi ble punis hm ents , po t ential defe nses, t echni cal pr obl ems thatt he def endantm ayencount e r , and anyot her fac t s i m por t antt o a gene r al under s t andi ng of the r i s ks i nvol ved”; a n d (3 ) “ a ss u re itse lf

” th a t th e d e f

e n d a n t is c o m p e ten t to sta n d trial. P ep p ers, 30 2 F
. 3 d at 13 2 (cit ati o n s a n d q u o tat ion s o m itted). B e c a u se B a n k s c o n tes ts o n lyw h e th e r h is m o tio n w a s s u f f icie n tly unequi vocal , B anks B r . at26, ouranal y s i s i n t hi s cas e does not p ro c e e d b e y o n d th e f

ir s t s te p . A l t hough B anks w as r epr es ent ed bycouns el , he nevert hel es s fi l ed mul t i pl e pro se re q u e sts w ith th e D istric t C o u rt. See A pp. 14- 37 ( D i s t r i ctC our tdocketentr i es )

. T he w r i t t en 17e . g . , Ap p . 2 8 ( Dk t
. No
. 1 5 3 – “ M OT I ON b yF RE DE RI CK H. B A N K S forA ddi t i onal L aw L i br aryA cce s s ”) ; A pp. 29 ( D kt

. N o. 162 – “ M OTI ON b yFREDERI CK H. BA NK S De ma n d i n g t h at A ngel i ca Bont a, U
. S. Pr obat i on O ffi cerand Paul H ul l , A s s i s t ant U
. S. A t t or ney A cknow l edge the PSI O bj ect i ons he fi l ed w i t h and F O IA /P riv a c yA c t R e q u e st to th e P robat i on O ff ice ” ); A p p . 2 9 (D k t. N o. 169 – “M O T IO N byFR E D E R I C K H
. B A N K S t o R ece i ve Pl eadi ngs ( documentnum ber s i ndi cat ed i n m ot i on) and al l of B r ady/ J encks m at er i al ”)

. W e not e thatt he D i s t r i ctC our t , perhaps i n an at t empt t o r et ai n contr ol of t he proc eedi ngs i n t he face of the B anks ’ s ons l aughtof pro se m ot i ons , or der ed o n M ar ch 8, 2005, that the C lerk o f C o u rt w as n o t to a cc ep t anyfu rth er pro se fi l i ngs f ro m B a n k s. A p p . 3 4
. T h e D istric t C o u rt w a s w ith in its a u th o rity to d o so . C f. U n it ed S tat es v . E ssig, 10 F
. 3 d 9 6 8 , 9 7 3 (3d C ir

. 1 9 9 3 ) ( o b s e r v i n g t h a tt h i s Cou r ti s n o tr e q u i r e d t o r e v i e w a cou nsel ed d efen dan t ’s pr o se ar gum ent ; “[i ] s s ues t hatcouns el ed par t i es at t empt t o r ai s e pro se need not be consi der ed except on a di r ectappeal i n w hi ch couns el has fi l ed a [ br i ef unde rA nder s v. C ali fo rnia, 38 6 U
. S

. 7 3 8 (19 6 7 )]”). 28 requestati ssue r ead as fo l l ow s:

“ M o tio n /D e f

e n d a n t In v o k e s h is C o n s titu tio n a l R ig h t to R e p re se n t H im se lf

p ro se U n til S u c h a T im e th a t itis d e ter m in e d th a t [ A U S A ] P a u l H u ll W ill A c k n o w led g e h is pr o s e M ot i ons A s T he D efe n d an t H as a C ons t i tut i onal R i ghtT o Fi l e M ot i on’ s pr o s e that t he C our t R ul es on A nd A re R esp o n d ed T o b ythe U S A A t Su ch A T im e T H A T IT IS D E T E R M IN E D T H A T D E F E N D A N T P ro se M OTI ON S W I LL NO T BE I GN OR ED B Y PA UL H ULL T HE DE F E NDANT I NT E NDS T O I NVOKE HI S RI GHT T O C O U N S E L B Y M R
. D A V ID C H O N T O S B U T U N T IL T H A T T I M E D E FE N D A N T I S PR O SE A T C r i m i nal N o. 03- 245 A nd N ow com es the d efen dan tpro se and avers : 1. See H eade r 2. A nyr es pon ses shoul d be forw ar ded t o t he def endant29 d ir ect l yand the def endant s s t andbycouns el / couns el w i t hhol di ng r es pons es t o m ot i on and mot i ons m ade byt he U S A viol at es defen dan t s due p rocess . W H E R E FO R E , t h e d e f

e ndantr es pect ful l ydemands thatt he m ot i on/ D efe ndanti nvokes , etal

. be G R A N T E D
. ” A p p . 1 4 3 9 (ca p it als in ori g inal). W e m u st “in d u lg e e v ery re a s o n a b le p re s u m p tio n a g a in s t w a i v e r o f th e ri g h t to c o u n s e l,” U ni t ed S tat es v. Stubbs , 281 F. 3d 109, 117 ( 3d C i r . 2002) ( ci t i ng J ohns on v. Z erbs t , 304 U
. S. 458, 464 ( 1938) ) , and obs erve thatan i nqui r yi nt o t he natu re o f an al l eged r eques tt o pr ocee d pro se at s ent enci ng “nee d not be as exhaus t i ve and s ear chi ng as a s i m i l ar i nqui r ybefor e the conc l us i on of tr i al

. ” Sal emo, 6 1 F
. 3d at219 ( emphasi s added)

. W i t h t hi s i n m i nd, w e conc l ude B anks ’ s w r i t t en re q u e st d id n o t re q u ire a n ya c tio n o n th e p a rt o f th e D istric t C o u rt. T he fi r s ts t ep of th e P ep p er s i nqui r yr equi r es an i nves t i gat i on i nt o w het her t he def en d a n t “ c l ear l yand un equ i vo cal l y ” assert ed h i s request
. H ere, w hil e B ank s’ s r equ est w a s titled , “D e f

e n d a n t In v o k e s h is C o n sti tu tio n a l R ig h t to R e p re se n t H im se lf

p ro se ,” B a n k s in a c tu a li tyre q u e ste d o n ly t empora r ys el f- r epr es ent at i on i n t hathe s t at ed he w oul d engage A t t or neyC hont os t o r epr es ent hi m as s oon as A U SA H ul l cea s ed ign o ri n g h is o th er pr o s e m ot i ons . W e vi ew t hi s onl yas an e x p re ss io n o f

B a n k s’s f

ru stra tio n w it h A U S A H u ll’s re f u sa l to resp o n d to h is othe r pr o s e m o tio n s a n d n o t as a c lea r re q u e st to pr ocee d pro se , fu rth e r n o ti n g th a t B a n k s w a s c o m p lain in g o n ly aboutA U SA H ul l and notabouthi s ow n couns el

. See B uhl v. C o o k se y , 2 3 3 F .3 d 7 8 3 , 7 9 2 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 0 ) (n o tin g c o n c e rn w ith p erm itti n g a d e f

en d an t’ s w aive r of

co u n sel b ase d o n m ere “musi ngs on t he benefi t s of s el f- r epr es ent at i on”)

. H ence , w e r ead B anks ’ s m ot i on as an expr es s i on of hi s frus t r at i on w i t h ourj udi ci al pr o c e s s ’ s r e q u i r e me n tt h a tc o mmun i c a t i o n s t a k e p l a c e b e t wee n at t or ney s , notbetw een pa r t i es and att or ney s , and no t as a cl ear r eques tfors el f- r epr es ent at i on. C f. J acks on v. Y l s t , 921 F. 2d 882, 8 8 8

- 8 9 ( 9 t h C i r . 1 9 9 0 ) ( “ T h e t r i a l c o u r tp r o p e r l y m a y d e n y a r eques tfors el f- r epr es ent at i on t hat i s ‘ a m om ent arycapr i ce ort he resu lto f th ink ing o u t l o u d

. ’”) (cit ati o n o m itted). I n addi t i on, B anks does noti dent i fyanym ot i ons t o w hi chB anks r ai sed the i s s ue of r ecus al onl yaft ert he D i s t r i ct 18 C our tt r i al and s ent enci ng pr ocee di ngs ati s s ue had e nded, w hi ch w e d e e m a f

a ilu re to tim e lyra ise th e iss u e w h ich a c c o rd in g ly cons t r ai ns us t o pl ai n err or r evi ew . See U ni t ed St at es v. V i s come, 1 4 4 F
. 3 d 1 3 6 5 , 1 3 7 0 (11 th C ir

. 1 9 9 8 ) (r ev iew ing d ef e n d an t’ s cons t i tut i onal chal l enge t o s t atut e of c onvi ct i on forpl ai n err or w h e re d e f

e n d a n t d id n o t ra ise c o n stitu tio n a l ch a llen g e to sta tu te unt i l aft ert r i al ) ; s ee a l s o L y ons v. J eff er s on B ank & T rus t , 994 F .2 d 7 1 6 , 7 2 2 -2 3 (1 0 th C ir. 1 9 9 3 ) (o b se rv in g th a t “a n u n tim e ly m o tio n , b y itse lf

, is n o t su f

f icie n t to p re se rv e a n iss u e f o r a p p e llate rev iew ”). 30 A U S A H u ll fa il ed to resp o n d af ter B an k s filed h is m o ti o n fo r pro se r epr es ent at i on, and, w hen as ked, expr es s ed no di ssat i s fac t i on w i t h hi s couns el ’ s per form ance ats ent enci ng. See A pp. 1337. A cc o rdin g ly , w e c o n c lu d e , o n the f ac ts of this case , that B an k s’s w ritten re q u e st w a s n o t su f f icie n tlyc lea r so a s to trig g e r a n yd u ty on t he partof the D i s t r i ctC our tt o address t he r eques tas a bona fi de mot i on t o pr ocee d pr o s e a n d p e r f o r m a f u l l P e p p e r s i n q u i r y. G. B anks fi nal l yar gues t hatJ udge H ar di m an s houl d have s ua sp o n te rec u sed h im self fro m this ca se be fo re sen tenc ing

. B an k s’s ar gum enti s bas ed on a jud ici al m i s conductcompl ai nthe fi l ed ag ains t Ju d g e H ard im an b ef o re se n tenc ing too k p lace o n F eb rua ry 25, 2005, but B anks di d not fi l e a mot i on forr ecus al unt i l A pr i l 25, 2005, w el l aft erhi s s ent enci ng. A pp. 36. W e re vi ew t he D i s t r i ct C our t ’ s deci s i on nott o su a sp o n te r ecus e forpl ai n err or . Sel kr i dge v. U ni t ed of O m aha Li fe I ns . C o. , 360 F. 3d 155, 166 ( 3d C ir

. 2 0 0 4 ). 18 U n d e r 2 8 U .S .C

. § 4 5 5 , a ju d g e m u st “ d isq u a lifyh im se lf in anypr ocee di ng i n w hi ch hi s i m p art i al i t ym i ghtr eas onabl ybe q u esti o n ed

. ” U n it ed S tat es v . B ertoli , 4 0 F
. 3 d 1 3 8 4 , 1 4 1 2 (3d C ir

. 1994)

. B el iefs oropi ni ons t hatm er i tr ecus al m us ti nvol ve an ex tr aj udi ci al fac t or ; “[f ] orexampl e, i f a j udge has acqui r ed a di s l i ke of a l i t i gantbeca us e of e vent s occurr i ng o u tsi d e of the co u rtroo m , a d u tyto rec u se m igh t en su e.” U n it ed S tat es v . A n tar,T he r ecor d i s atbes tuncl ear as t o w hen J udge H ar di m an 19 a c tu a llylea rn e d o f

B a n k s’s m isc o n d u c t co m p lain t. W e o b s e r v e th at B anks ’ s o w n comm ent s att he M ar ch 17, 20 2005, r ecus al hear i ng befor e J udge H ar di m an indi cat e an agr eementw i t h ourconcl us i on on t hi s i s s ue. A tt hathear i ng, J udge H ar di m an r ecus ed hi m s el f fr om a s epar at e cr i m i nal cas e i nvol vi ng B anks , C as e N um ber04- 176, on t he gro u nd t hatB anks had fi l ed a j udi ci al m i s conduct compl ai nt agai ns thi m i n t he i ns t antcas e, and t he fol l ow i ng excha nge t ook pl ace : Th e Cou r t : I n l i ght of t he pend ing compl ai nt of j udi ci al

m i s conduct t hat M r . B anks fi l ed agai ns tm e, I t hi nk

31 53 F. 3d 568, 574 ( 3d C i r . 1995)

. T o have caus e t o r ecus e, a j udge m u st h a v e a c tu a l k n o w led g e o f th e a lleg e d g ro u n d s f

o r re c u sa l;
“ [ t]h e e v il th a t a tim e lin e ss re q u ire m e n t is in ten d e d to p re v e n t – n a m e ly , h o ld in g in re se rv e a re c u sa l d e m a n d u n til su c h tim e th a t a par t y per cei ves a str at egi c advant age – i s s erved byr equi r i ng actual know l edge. ” I n r e K ens i ngt on I nt ’ l

. L t d. , 368 F. 3d 289, 294 ( 3d C ir . 2 0 0 4 ). O n t he ci r cumst ance s pr es ent ed her e, w e per cei ve no nee d for J udge H ar di m an t o have r ecus ed hi m s el f on hi s ow n i ni t i at i ve fr om B anks ’ s s ent enci ng. E ven as s umi ng t hatJ udge H ar di m an had a c tu a l k n o w led g e o f

B a n k s’s c o m p lain t before s ent enci ng, B anks 19 had al r eadyd e l uged the D i s t r i ctC our tw i t h num er ous and fr i vol ous pro se m ot i ons t hr oughout t he pr ocee di ngs , and w e ar e unw i l l i ng to c o n c lu d e th a t Ju d g e H a rd im a n e rre d b yn o t su a sp o n te r ecus i ng hi m s el f fr om s ent enci ng s i m pl ybeca us e B anks , a convi ct ed defe ndantw ho had al r eadycl ogged the pr ocee di ng s w i t h pro se m o tio n s, a lso f

iled a ju d icia l m isc o n d u c t co m p lain t in a d d iti o n to h is othe r pr o s e m o tio n s . C f. M a rt in v . M o n u m e n ta l L if e In s . C o ., 24 0 F
. 3d 22 3, 23 7 ( 3d C i r. 20 01 ) (“W e al so beli eve thatt here m ust be a mor e compel l i ng s t andar d forr ecus al under§ 455( a) aft ert he concl us i on of a tr i al t han bef or e i t s i ncept i o n . A ft era mass i ve pr ocee di ng s uch as t hi s , w hen the courthas i nves t ed s ubs t ant i al j udi ci al r es our ces and ther e i s i ndi s put abl yno evi dence of pr ej udi ce, a mot i on for r ecus al of a t r i al j udge s houl d be s uppor t ed b ysu b stan ti al j u sti fica ti o n , n o t fan cifu l i ll u sion

. ”). 20myi mpart i a l i t ymi gh t r e a s on a bl y be qu e s t i on e d. So fort hatr eas on, I ’ m goi ng t o r ecus e my s el f fr om pr es i di ng overcas e 04- 17 6 , pur s uantt o T i t l e 28 U n it ed S tat es C o d e, S ec ti o n 4 5 5 (a). B a n k s: Y o u r H o n o r, I d o n ’t th in k th a t th a t is a p p ro p ria te

becau s e any one ca n fi l e a j udi ci al m i s conduct compl ai ntand w e can’ thave j udges r ecus i ng th e m se lv e s b e c a u se so m e b o d yf iled a c o m p lain t. A n yb o d yc a n d o th a t.

32 IV
. F or the fo regoi ng reas on s, w e w i l l affirm B ank s’ s c o n v ictio n s f

o r m a il fra u d , crim in a l co p yrig h t in f rin g e m e n t, utt eri ng and po sses sin g c o u n ter f e it o r f o rg e d se c u rities , an d w itn ess t amper i ng i n t hei r ent i r ety . W e w i l l al s o aff i r m B anks ’ s s ent ence , concl udi ng (1) t he D i s t r i ctC our tw as notobl i gat ed t o pr ovi de a d v a n c e n o t i c e u n d e rRu l e 3 2 ( h ) o f i t s i n t e n t t o va r y f

r o m a G u id e lin e s s e n ten c e w h e re th a t v a ria n c e w a s b a se d o n f u ll co n sid e ra t i on of the § 3 55 3(a) fact ors and n ot on t he G uidel i nes; and, ( 2) t hatt he D i s t r i ctC our thad st atut or y author i t y t o i s s ue an in pers onam cr i m i nal for fei tur e j udgm ent , r egar dl es s of w hethert he amount of thatj udgm ent exce eded Banks’ s avai l abl e as s et s att he t i m e of c onvi ct i on.