# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls

For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 2- 37 54

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el le e

v.

Je ffre y Co le Ben ne tt

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll an t

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 3- 11 09

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el le e

v.

Je nn ife r Ro se Hog el an d

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll an t

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 3- 20 38

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el le ev.

Cl ay to n C rai g Ho ge la nd

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll an t

__ __ __ __ __ __

App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t
fo r th e Dis tri ct of M in ne so ta - St. Pa ul

__ __ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: Ju ne 10 , 20 14
Fil ed : Au gu st 29 , 20 14

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re LOKEN, BEAM, and GRUENDER, Circu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __

GRUENDER, Circ ui t J ud ge

.

A jury fo un d Je ffre y Ben ne tt (“ Ben ne tt ”), Je nn ife r Hog el an d (“ Je nn ife r”), an d

Cl ay to n Hog el an d (“ Cl ay to n” ) gu ilt y on se ve ra l co unt s ste m

m ing from two frau du le nt

sc he m es

. The di st ric t co ur t se nt en ced th em to ni ne ty-fiv e m on th s’, fif te en m on th s’, 1

an d 20 0 m on th s’ im

pr is on m en t, res pe ct iv el y

. Ben ne tt an d Cl ay to n ap pe al bo th th ei r

co nv ic ti on s an d se nt en ces

. Je nn ife r ap pe al s he r co nv ic ti on s. Cl ay to n di ed whi le th is

ap pe al was pe nd in g. Fo r th e reas o n s de sc rib ed be lo w, we va cat e Cl ay to n’s

co nv ic ti on s an d rem an d hi s cas e to th e di st ric t co ur t wit h in st ru ct io ns to di sm is s th e

in di ct m en t as it rel at es to hi m

. Howev er, we affi rm Ben ne tt ’s co nv ic ti on s an d

se nt en ce, as well as J en ni fer’s co nv ic ti on s.

The Hon or ab le Pat ric k J. Sch il tz

, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e Dis tri ct 1

of Mi nn es ot a.

-2

-I. Ba ck gr ou nd

Cl ay to n se rv ed as ge ne ral m an ag er of Adv an ta ge Tran sp or ta ti on , In c. (“ Adv an ta ge ”), a la rg e Mi nn es o t a

- b as ed tru ck in g- lo gi st ic s co m pa ny. As ge ne ral

m an ag er, Cl ay to n ha d “fr e e rei gn ” to m an ag e th e co m pa ny’ s op erat io ns , in cl ud in g

co nt ract in g wit h ou ts id e ve nd or s an d ap pr ov in g in vo ic es fo r pa y m en t. At Cl ay to n’s

reco m m en da ti on , in May 20 03

, Adv an ta ge hi red Ben ne tt to o v e r se e it s Mem ph is

, Ten ne ss ee o ffi ce.

So on th erea fte r, Cl ay to n an d Ben ne tt ha tc he d a sc he m e to de frau d Adv an ta ge

. Ben ne tt crea te d fo ur co rp or at io ns : Am eri can Log is ti cs Adv is or s, In c. (“ ALA”);

Tran sp or ta ti on Mar ke ti ng Co nc ep ts

, In c. (“ TMC”) ; LTLDevel op m en t.co m , In c. (“ LTL”); a n d A ir Cat eri ng So lu ti on s an d Mar ke ti ng , In c. (“ ACS”)

. Bet ween 20 03

an d 2 00 5, t he co rp or at io ns su bm it te d n um ero us in vo ic es to Adv an ta ge pu rp or te dl y

fo r va rio us go od s or se rv ic es pr ov id ed to Adv an ta ge

. Cl ay to n ap pr ov ed th e in vo ic es , aft er whi ch ch eck s were ge ne rat ed fr o m A d v an ta ge to th e co rp or at e en ti ti es

. The

ch eck s were th en m ai le d or , on rare oc cas io ns , se nt by co m m on carr ie r to th e

reci pi en ts

. W hi le Adv an ta ge ’s acco un ti ng st aff kn ew th at th es e pa y m en ts were be in g

mad e , th ey were un aware th at th e co rp or at io ns were own ed by Ben ne tt

. Des pi te

r e c ei vi ng th e pa y m en ts fro m Adv an ta ge , Ben ne tt ’s co rp or at io ns ne ve r act ua ll y

pr ov id ed th e go od s or ser vi ces for whi ch th ey ha d b il le d Ad va nt ag e. Ban k reco rd s

fo r ALA

, TMC, an d LTL sh owe d th at th e on ly pa y m en ts th e co rp or at io ns ha d

rece iv ed were fro m Adv an ta ge an d th at th ey di d no t pa y or di na ry bu si ne ss ex pe ns es

su ch as ren t or ut il it ie s. The on ly bu si ne s s

- e x p e n s e pa y m en ts rev eal ed by ACS’s

ba nk reco rd s were pa y ro ll ch eck s to two em pl oyees. In st ead

, Ben ne tt ’s co rp or at io ns

wro te nu m ero us ch eck s to Je nn ife r, m os t of whi ch sh e de po si te d in to he r ba nk

acco un t. Nearl y al l of th e co m pa ni es ’ rem ai ni ng fu nd s were wit hd rawn by Ben ne tt

. In all , Ben ne tt rece iv ed $3 93 ,09 1 t hr ou gh th e fra ud ul en t s ch em e.

-3

-Beg in ni ng in 20 03 , C la y to n al so op erat ed a se pa rat e f r a u d ul en t sc he m e wit h

Carl Frey, an Am eri can Airl in es em pl oyee who was res po ns ib le fo r fin di ng tru ck in g

co m pa ni es to de li ve r frei gh t fo r th e ai rli ne

. The two ag reed th at Frey wou l d st eer

Am eri can Airl in es tru ck in g bu si ne ss to Adv an ta ge , an d, in ex ch an ge , Cl ay to n wou ld

au th or iz e pa y m en ts fro m Adv an ta ge to Frey pe rs on al ly. In al l, Frey rece iv ed ne arl y
$9 0,0 00 . Neit he r Am eri can Airl in es no r Adv an ta ge were awar e o f th is sch em e.

Cl ay to n res ig ne d fro m Adv an ta ge in th e sp rin g of 20 05

, an d Ben ne t t l e f t in
Sep te m be r 20 06

. Neit he r Je nn ife r no r Cl ay to n in fo rm ed th ei r ta x pr ep arer s ab ou t th e

fu nd s ob ta in ed th ro ug h th es e frau du le nt sc he m es , an d th us th ei r il li ci t in co m e was no t

in cl ud ed on th ei r joi nt fed eral in co m e-t ax ret ur ns for 20 03 , 20 04 , and 20 05

.

Af t e r th e frau du le nt sc he m es were di sc ov ered

, a gr an d jury ret ur ne d an

in di ct m en t ag ai ns t Ben ne tt

, Cl ay to n, an d Je nn ife r. The in di ct m en t ch arg ed Ben ne tt

an d Cl ay to n wit h m ai l frau d, in vi ol at io n of 18 U.S.C. § 13 41 ; co ns pi racy to co m m it

m ai l frau d, in vi ol at io n of 18 U.S.C. § 37 1; an d c on sp ira cy to co m m it m on ey

la un de rin g, in vi ol at io n of 18 U.S.C. § 19 5 6 ( h )

. The in di ct m en t al so ch arg ed

Ben ne t t

, Cl ay to n, an d Je nn ife r wit h in co m e-t ax ev as io n, in vi ol at io n of 26 U.S.C.

§ 7 20 1. Aft er a joi nt tri al , a jury fo un d Ben ne tt , C la y to n, an d Je nn ife r gu il ty on a ll

co un ts

. Ben ne tt an d Cl ay to n ap pe al bo th th ei r co nv ic ti o n s a n d th ei r se nt en ces

. Je nn ife r ap pe al s o nl y

he r co nv ic ti on s.

II . Dis cus si on

A. Cla yt on ’s Appea l

As no te d ab ov e, Cl a yt o n d i e d whi le th is ap pe al was pe nd in g. Thu s, th e

cri m in al pr oc eed in gs ag ai ns t Cl ay to n ab at ed ab in it io

. Se e Cr oo ker v. Uni te d St at es , 32 5 F.2 d 31 8, 31 9- 20 (8 th Ci r. 19 63 ). Co ns is te nt wit h ou r pr act ic e in su ch si tu at io ns ,

we va cat e hi s con vi ct io ns an d rem an d hi s cas e to th e di st ric t co ur t wit h in st ru ct io ns

-4

-to di sm is s th e in di ct m en t as it pe rta in s to hi m

. Se e Uni te d St at es v. How e , 59 1 F.2 d

45 4, 4 59 (8t h C ir. 1 97 9)

.

B. Ben nett ’s Appea l

1. St at ute o f Li m ita tio ns

Ben ne tt arg ue s th at th e di st ric t co ur t erre d by de nyin g hi s m ot io n to di sm is s th e

m ai l-f rau d an d m ai l-f

rau d- co ns pi racy co un ts on th e gr ou nd th at th ey are ba rred by th e

st at ut e of li m it at io ns

. W e rev ie w th e di st ric t co ur t’s de ni al of a m ot io n to di sm is s an

in di ct m en t ba se d on th e st at ut e of li m it at io ns de no vo

. Uni te d St at es v. Mue ll er , 66 1

F.3 d 33 8, 3 44 (8t h C ir. 20 11 ). The fiv e-year st at ut e of li m it at io ns pr es cri be d by 18

U.S.C. § 3 28 2 g ov ern s b ot h c ou nt s.

The in di ct m en t al le ge d th at on Mar ch 17

, 20 05

, Ben ne tt rece iv ed a ch eck fro m

Cl ay t o n d i s b u r s in g a frau du le nt pa y m en t m ad e by Adv an ta ge to ACS. Thu s, th e

ch eck m us t ha ve be en m ai le d, at th e la te st

, on Mar ch 16

, 20 05

. The in di ct m en t was

fil ed on Mar ch 17

, 20 10

. Ben ne tt arg ue s th at th e li m it at io ns pe rio d en de d on Mar ch

16 , 20 10 , fiv e y ears aft er t he ch eck was m ai le d t o B en ne tt

.

Fi rs t, th e st at ut e of li m it at io ns di d n o t b a r th e m ai l-f rau d ch arg e. In ge ne ral

,

a cri m in al st at ut e of li m it at io ns be gi ns to ru n “ whe n each el em en t of th at of fen se ha s

oc cu rred .” Uni te d St at es v. Gon za le z , 49 5 F.3 d 57 7, 58 0 (8 th Ci r. 20 07 ) (q uo ti ng

Uni te d St at es v. Y

as ha r , 16 6 F.3 d 87 3, 87 5 (7 th Ci r. 19 99 )). The el em en ts of a m ai lfrau d of fen se un de r 18 U.S.C. § 13 41 a r e : “(1 ) a s ch em e to de frau d by m ean s of

m a t e r i a l fal se rep res en ta ti on s or pr om is es , (2 ) in te nt to de frau d, (3 ) reas on ab le

fo res eeab il it y th at th e m ai l wou ld be us ed

, an d (4 ) th at th e m ai l was us ed in

fu rth eran ce of so m e es se nt ia l st ep in th e sc he m e.” Uni te d St at es v. Co le

, 72 1 F.3 d

10 16

, 10 21 (8t h C ir. 2 01 3) (qu ot in g Uni te d S ta te s v. Lo up er -Mo rr is

, 67 2 F.3d 53 9,

55 5 (8 th Ci r. 20 12 )). The fo ur th el em en t can be sa ti sf ie d b y p l a ci ng an it em in th e

-5

-m ai l, se nd in g or cau si ng an it em to be se nt by co m m on carr ie r, ta ki ng or rece iv in g an

it em fro m th e m ai l or a co m m on carr ie r, or kn owi ng ly cau si ng an it em to be de li ve red
by m ai l or co m

m on carr ie r. 18 U.S.C. § 13 41

. Thu s, un de r ou r ge ne ral ru le

, th e da te

on whi ch th e st at ut e of li m it at io ns be gi ns to ru n “ de pe nd [s ] on th e sp eci fic us e of th e

m ai ls ch arg ed in th e in di ct m en t.” Uni te d St at es v. Cr os sl ey , 22 4 F.3 d 84 7, 85 9 (6 th

Ci r. 20 00 ); se e al

so Uni te d St at es v. Pha ri s , 29 8 F.3 d 22 8, 23 4 n.3 (3 d Ci r. 20 02 ).

The in di ct m en t h e r e al le ge d th at Ben ne tt us ed th e m ai l by rece iv in g a ch eck fro m

Cl ay to n on Mar ch 17

, 20 05

, wit hi n fiv e y ears of th e da te on whi ch th e in di ct m en t was

fil ed

. Thu s, th e st at ut e of li m it at io ns di d no t ba r th e m ai l-f rau d co un t ag ai ns t

Ben ne tt

. 2

Howev er, Ben ne tt arg ue s th at ou r de ci si on in Uni te d St at es v. Pembe rt on , 12 1

F. 3 d 1 1 5 7 ( 8 t h Ci r. 19 97 ), pr es cri be s th at th e st at ut e of li m it at io ns fo r m ai l frau d

be gi ns to ru n on ly o n th e da te th e it em was de p o s i t e d in to th e m ai l. In Pembe rt on ,

we st at ed th at “ [f]or m ai l frau d, th e rel ev an t da te [fo r th e ru nn in g of th e st at ut e of

li m it at io ns ] is th e da te of m ai li ng .” Id

. at 11 63

. Ben ne tt co ns tru es th e ph ras e “ da te

of m ai li ng ” to m ean th e da te o n whi ch th e se nd er de po si te d th e it em in to th e m ai l,

ev en if th e de fen da nt vi ol at ed § 13 4 1 by u si ng th e m ai l in so m e ot he r way , s uc h as by re cei vi ng th e it em . Thu s, Ben ne tt arg ue s, th e st at ut e of li m it at io ns be ga n to ru n

on th e da te th e ch eck was m ai le d to hi m ; th at is

, on Mar ch 16

, 20 05 —m or e th an fiv e

y ears be fo re t he in di ct m en t ag ai ns t Be nn et t was fil ed

.

The pa rti al di ss en t co nt en ds th a t t hi s co nc lu si on co nf li ct s wit h th e vi ews of 2

ou r si st er ci rcu it s. We di sa gr ee. Uni te d S ta te s v. Ho ff ecke r , 53 0 F .3d 13 7, 1 58 (3d
Ci r. 20 08 ), on whi ch th e pa rti al di ss en t rel ie s, co nc ern ed a si tu a t i o n i n whi ch th e de fen da nt ’s cha rg ed co nd uc t was se nd in g, no t rece iv in g, a m ai li ng an d is th eref or e di st in gu is ha bl e. Mo reo ve r, th e ot he r cas es ci te d by th e pa rti al di ss en t “ are co ns is te nt
wit h ou r ho ld i n g b e c a u s e we do no t be li ev e th at th e ‘dat e of th e m ai li ng ’ [as
di sc us se d in th os e cas es ] was in te nd ed to ha v e a r es tri ct iv e m ean in g, li m it ed to th e da te on whi ch th e rel ev an t m at te r act ua ll y was m ai le d.” Cr os sl ey , 22 4 F.3 d at 85 9 (d is cu ss in g Uni te d St at es v. Eis en , 97 4 F.2 d 24 6, 26 3 (2 d Ci r. 19 92 ), an d Uni te d

St at es v. Dun n , 96 1 F .2d 64 8, 6 50 (7t h C ir. 1 99 2) ).

-6

-Ben ne tt m is read s Pembe rt on be cau se he de co nt ex tu al iz es ou r refe ren ce to “ th e

da te of m ai li ng ” fro m th e is su e pr es en te d in th at cas e. In Pembe rt on , th e de fen da nt s

frau du le nt ly in du ced an In di an tri be to en te r in to a se rie s of co nt ract s wit h th em

. Id

.
at 11 60 -6 1. The y arg ue d th at th e st at ut e of li m it at io ns ba rred th ei r m ai l-f rau d ch arg e

be cau se th ey ha d frau du le nt ly in du ced th e tri be to en te r th e co nt ract s m or e th an fiv e

y ears be fo re th e in di ct m en t ag ai ns t th em was fil ed

. Id

. at 11 62 -6 3. Howev er, wit hi n

th e li m it at io ns pe rio d, th e de fen da nt s ha d us ed th e m ai l to di sb ur se th e fu nd s ob ta in ed

un de r th e co nt ract s. Id

. at 11 62

. W e reject ed th e de fen da nt s’ arg um en t an d cl ari fie d

th at a m ai l-f

rau d of fen se is no t co m

pl et ed —an d th e st a t u t e o f l im it at io ns do es no t

be gi n to ru n— un ti l th e da te on whi ch th e de fen da nt us es th e mai l in fu rth eran ce of

hi s frau du le nt sc he m e (th at is

, “ th e da te of m ai li ng ” in th at cas e). Se e id

. at 11 63 -6 4.

The li m it at io ns pe rio d do es no t beg in si m pl y be cau se a frau du le nt sc he m e ha s be en

ha tc he d or th e fru it s of th at sc he m e ha ve be en ob ta in ed

. Se e Uni te d St at es v. Eis en , 97 4 F.2d 24 6, 26 3 (2d Ci r. 19 92 ) (ci te d by Pembe rt on , reject in g arg um en t “ th at th e

m ai l frau d cl ai m s da te fro m th e ti m e th e frau d was co nc e i v e d ” )

. B ecau se th e

Pembe rt on de fen da nt s ha d us ed th e m ai l in fu rth eran ce of th e frau d wit hi n th e

li m it at io ns pe rio d, t he st at ut e of li m it at io ns di d n ot ba r th e m ai l-f rau d c ha rg es . W e

refe r r e d t o “the da te of m ai li ng ” on ly to em ph as iz e th at a de fen da nt ’s us e of th e

m ai l— rat he r th an so m e ot he r as pe ct of th e frau du le nt sc he m e—d et erm in es whe n th e

li m it at io ns pe rio d be gi ns

. Pembe rt on di d no t e s t a b l is h an an om al ou s ru le

, in co ns is te nt wit h ou r ge ne ral appr oa ch to cr im inal st at ut es of li m it at io ns , un de r whi ch

th e li m it at io ns pe rio d fo r m ai l frau d beg in s befo re all of th e el em en ts of th e of fen se

ha ve be en co m

pl et ed

. In th is cas e, th e in di ct m en t al le ge d an d th e Gov ern m en t pr ov ed

t h a t Ben ne tt rece iv ed th e ch eck by m ai l wit hi n th e li m it at io ns pe rio d on Mar c h 1 7

, 20 05

. Thu s, th e st at ut e of li m it at io ns di d no t ba r th e m ai l-f rau d c h a r g e a g ai ns t

Ben ne tt

. Se e Cr os sl ey , 22 4 F.3 d at 85 9 (h ol di ng th at st at ut e of li m it at io ns di d no t ba r

m ai l-f rau d ch arg e whe re i nd ic tm en t al le ge d th at de fen da nt rece iv ed m ai li ng wit hi n

li m it at io ns pe rio d)

.

-7

-Si m il arl y , th e st at ut e of li m it at io n s d i d no t ba r th e m ai l-f rau d- co ns pi racy

ch arg e. “ In a co ns pi racy ch arg e, th e li m it at io ns pe rio d be g i n s t o ru n fro m th e

oc cu rren ce of th e la st ov ert act co m m it te d in fu rth eran ce of th e co ns pi racy th at is se t

fo rth in th e in di ct m en t.” Mue ll er , 66 1 F.3d at 34 7 (qu ot in g Uni te d St at es v. Dol an , 12 0 F.3 d 85 6, 86 4 (8 th Ci r. 19 97 )). Ben ne tt ’s rece ip t of th e ch eck on Mar ch 17 was

an ov ert act in fu rth eran ce of th e mai l

- f rau d co ns pi racy, on e th at was in te gr al to

carr y in g on th e frau du le nt sc he m e. Se e id

. (ex pl ai ni ng th at th e rece ip t by m ai l of li fein su ran ce pr oc eed s fro m po li cy in su rin g vi ct im co ns ti tu te d an ov ert act in fu rth eran ce

of a co ns pi racy to co m

m it m ur de r-fo r-h ire ). Bec au se th is ov ert act oc cu rred wit hi n

th e li m it at io ns pe rio d, th e st at ut e of li m it at io ns di d no t ba r h i s pr os ecu ti on fo r

co ns pi racy to co m

m it m ai l frau d. Acco rd in gl y , th e di st ric t c o u r t d i d n ot err by

de nyin g Ben ne tt ’s m ot io n to di sm is s the m ai l- fr au d and m ai l-f rau d- co ns pi racy co un ts

of th e in di ct m en t.

2. Su ffi ci ency of t he Ev id ence

Ben ne tt ne xt arg ue s th at th e di st ric t co ur t e r r e d b y de nyin g hi s m ot io n fo r a jud gm en t of acq ui tt al on th e m a i l

- f r au d ch arg e be cau se th e Gov ern m en t fai le d to

pr es en t su ffi ci en t ev id en ce to su pp or t th e jury’ s ve rd ic t. Sp eci fic al ly, Ben ne tt arg ue s

th at th e ev id en ce di d no t pe rm it th e jury to fin d th at th e Ma rch 16 , 20 05 ch eck was

m ai le d to Ben ne tt

, th at Ben ne tt rece iv ed th e ch eck

, o r t ha t th e m ai li ng was in

fu rth eran ce of a frau du le nt sc he m e. “We r ev ie w th e de ni al of a m ot io n fo r a jud gm en t of acq ui tt al ba se d on th e s u f f i ci en cy of th e ev id en ce de no vo .” Uni te d

St at es v. Ch at mon , 7 4 2 F .3d 35 0, 35 2 (8 th Ci r. 20 14 ). “ W e wil l affi rm un le ss , vi ewin g th e ev id en ce in th e li gh t m os t fav or ab le to th e Gov ern m en t an d acce pt in g al l

reas on ab le in fere nc es th at m ay be dr awn in fav or of th e ve rd ic t, no reas on ab le jury

co ul d ha ve fo un d [th e de fen da nt ] gu il ty.” Id

. (al te rat io n in or ig in al ) (q uo ti ng Uni te d

St at es v. Bynu m , 66 9 F .3d 88 0, 8 83 (8t h C ir. 2 01 2) ).

-8

-The Gov ern m en t pr e s en te d su ffi ci en t ev id en ce to pe rm it th e jury to fin d th at

th e Mar ch 16 ch eck was m ai le d, th at Ben ne tt rece iv ed th e ch eck

, an d th at th e m ai li ng

was in fu rth eran ce of a frau du le nt sc he m e. The Gov ern m en t in tro du ced a ch eck fro m

Adv an ta ge m ad e pa y ab le to ACS an d da te d Mar ch 1 6

, 2 0 0 5

. Dian a Goe m be l, an

Adv an ta ge acco un ti ng m an ag er, te st ifi ed th at it wa s Adv an ta ge ’s b us in es s pr act ic e

th at on ce a ch eck was si gn ed fo r an ou t-o f-s ta te ve nd or , Adv an ta ge wou ld th en se nd

t h e c h e c k to th e ve nd or by m ai l or , on rare oc cas io ns , by co m m on carr ie r. Th e

ad dr es s o n t he ch eck in di cat ed th at it was b ei ng sen t fr om Adv an ta ge in Mi nn es ot a

to ACS in Ten ne ss ee, an d th e ad dr es s was po si ti on ed on th e ch eck so as to be vi si bl e

th ro ug h an en ve lo pe ’s cl ear- pl as ti c ad dr es s win do w. Ben ne tt co un te rs th at Goe m be l

was on m at ern it y le av e a t t h e t i me t he ch eck was se nt an d th us th at he r te st im on y

do es no t ne ces sa ril y refl ect Adv an ta ge ’s pr act ic e at th at ti m e. Howev er, no ev id en ce

was pr es en te d sh owi ng th at Adv an ta ge al te red it s us ua l ch eck -m ai li ng pr act ic e whi le

Goe m be l was on m at ern it y le av e. The refo re, th e ju r y w a s pe rm it te d to rel y on he r

te st im on y to fin d th at th e ch eck was se nt by m ai l to ACS. Se e Uni te d St at es v.

Sh yr es , 89 8 F.2d 64 7, 65 4- 55 (8 th Ci r. 19 90 ) (h ol di ng th at a bu si ne ss ’s “ cu st om ary

pr oc ed ur e fo r pa y in g in vo ic es ” can su pp or t a fin di ng th at th e de fen da nt us ed th e m ai l

to co m m it m ai l frau d) ; se e al

so Uni te d St at es v. Delf

in o , 51 0 F.3 d 46 8, 47 1 (4 th Ci r.

20 07 ) (“ [T]he u se of t he m ai ls can be pr ov en th ro ug h evi de nc e of bu si ne ss pr act ic e

or of fic e cu st om .”). Fro m th is ev id en ce, th e jur y r eas on ab ly co ul d ha ve co nc lu de d

th at th e Mar ch 16 ch eck was m ai le d fro m Adv an ta ge

. Se e al so Uni te d St at es v.

Ki ef fe r , 62 1 F.3d 82 5, 83 2- 33 (8t h C ir. 2 01 0) (ho ld in g t ha t ju ry co ul d i nf er t ha t t he

m ai ls were u se d b ecau se an it em was d el iv ered to Nort h Dak ot a fro m Cal ifo rn ia ).

The Gov ern m en t al so pr es e n t e d ev id en ce pe rm it ti ng th e jury to co nc lu de

reas on ab ly th at Ben ne tt rece iv ed th e ch eck

. ACS’s ba nk reco rd s rev eal th at a ch eck

was de po si te d in ACS’s ba nk acco un t on Mar ch 19

, 20 05 fo r th e sa m e am ou nt as th e

c h eck se nt fro m Adv an ta ge

. Ben ne tt was on e of th ree in di vi du al s au th or iz ed t o

de po si t fu nd s in to th e acco un t. He ha s no t po in te d to an y ev id en ce sh owi ng th at th e

ot he r two in di vi du al s ev er de po si te d m on ey i n t o t h e a cco un t. Thi s ev id en ce

-9

-reg ard in g th e d e p o s i t o f th e ch eck pe rm it te d th e jury to co nc lu de reas on ab ly th at

B e n n et t rece iv ed th e ch eck th at ha d be en m ai le d to ACS, whi ch he own ed an d

m an ag ed

, fro m Adv an ta ge

. Ben ne tt arg ue s th at th e ot he r two in di vi du al s au th or iz ed

to m ak e de po si ts —ra th er th an h e

— c ou ld ha ve rece iv ed th e ch eck

. W hi le th e jury

p e rh ap s co ul d ha ve reac he d th at co nc lu si on , it di d no t do so

. “ The f a c t s a n d

ci rcu m st an ces rel ie d on by th e go ve rn m en t m us t be co ns is te n t w i th gu il t, bu t th ey

ne ed no t be in co ns is te nt wit h an y ot he r hypo th es is

. . . .” Ch at mon , 74 2 F.3 d at 35 3
(al te rat io n om it te d) (q uo ti ng Uni te d St at es v. La m , 33 8 F. 3 d 8 6 8, 87 2 (8 th Ci r.

20 03 ) )

. Th u s , th e Gov ern m en t pr es en te d su ffi ci en t ev id en ce to pe rm it th e jury to

co nc lu de reas on ab ly tha t Be nn et t re cei ve d t he Marc h 1 6 c he ck th ro ug h t he m ai l.

Fi na ll y , th e jury co ul d ha ve reas on ab ly co nc lu de d th at Ben ne tt ’s rece ip t of th e

ch eck was in fu rth eran ce of an es se nt ia l st ep of th e frau du le nt sc he m e. Se e Co le

, 72 1

F.3 d at 10 21

. The Gov ern m en t pr es en te d ex te ns iv e ev id en ce of Cl ay to n an d

Ben ne tt ’s m

ul ti -y ear s ch em e to de frau d Adv an ta ge

. Sev eral Adv an ta ge em pl oyees

te st ifi ed th at

, de sp it e ex ha us ti ve se arch es of th e co m pa ny’ s reco rd s, th ey co ul d fin d

no pr oo f th at ACS an d Ben ne tt ’s ot he r co m pa ni es act ua ll y pr ov id ed an y go od s or

se rv ic es fo r whi ch th ey ha d bi ll ed Ad v a n ta ge

. Si m il arl y , no ot he r Adv an ta ge

em pl oyees were aware of an y wor k th at Ben ne tt ’s co m pa ni es ha d do ne fo r Adv an ta ge

or go od s th ey ha d su pp li ed

. Goe m be l t es ti fie d t ha t sh e ha d no t kn own th at Ben ne tt

own ed th e co m

pa ni es to whi ch Adv an ta ge m ad e nu m ero us pa y m en ts

. The Mar ch 16

ch eck was de po si te d i n ACS ’s ban k a cco un t, an d n earl y th e en ti ret y

of t he fun ds in

th at acco un t were di st rib ut ed to Ben ne tt or to Je nn ife r. Fro m th is ev id en ce, th e jury

co ul d ha ve reas on ab ly co nc lu de d th at th e Mar ch 16 ch eck was m ai le d in fu rth eran ce

of th e sc he m e to ha ve Adv an ta ge pa y frau du le nt in vo ic es an d di st rib ut e th e pr oc eed s

of th os e in vo ic es to Ben ne tt an d Je nn ife r. Acco rd in gl y , th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t err

in de nyin g B en ne tt ’s m ot io n fo r a jud gm en t o f acq ui tt al

. 3

Ben ne tt al so arg ue s th at th e Gov ern m en t fai le d to pr es en t su ffi ci en t ev id en ce 3

to su pp or t hi s co nv ic ti on s fo r co ns pi racy to co m m it m on ey la un de rin g an d co ns pi racy

-1 0-3. Si xt h Am endment

Ben ne tt ne xt arg ue s th at th e di st ric t co ur t vi ol at ed hi s Si xt h Am en dm en t rig ht

to a jury tri al by ap pl y in g se v e r a l en ha nc em en ts un de r th e ad vi so ry se nt en ci ng

gu id el in es ba se d on fact s th at were no t fo un d by th e jury. W e rev ie w a co ns ti tu ti on al

ch al le ng e to a se nt en ce de no vo

. Uni te d St at es v. Bow er s , 63 8 F.3 d 61 6, 62 0 (8 th Ci r.

20 11 ). Ben ne tt rel ie s pr im ari ly on th e Su pr em e Co ur t’s rece nt de ci si on in All eyn e v.

Uni te d St at es , 13 3 S.Ct

. 21 51 (2 01 3)

. Howev er, und er All eyn e , th e Si xt h Am en dm en t

pe rm it s a di st ric t co ur t to rel y on fact s be y on d th os e fo un d by th e jury whe n th e co ur t

cal cu la te s th e ap pl ic ab le ad vi so ry se nt en ci ng gu id el in es ran ge an d se le ct s a se nt en ce

wit hi n th e st at ut or il y -p res cri be d ran ge

. Uni te d St at es v. Dav is

, --- F.3 d ---, 20 14 W L

26 09 71 5, at *1 (8 th Ci r. Ju ne 12

, 20 14 ) (p er cu ria m ) ; All eyn e , 13 3 S.Ct

. at 21 61 n.2

. H e r e , t he fact s fo un d by th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t al te r th e st at ut or y m ax im um or

m in im um sen te nc e th at Ben ne tt face d. In st ead , th e d is tri ct co ur t m erel y us ed th os e

fact s to cal cu la te th e ap pl ic ab le se nt en ci ng gu id el in es ran g e an d to ex erci se it s

di sc ret io n whe n im

po si n g a se nt en ce wit hi n th e ran ge pr es cri be d by st at ut e. Thu s,

th e d is tri ct co ur t d id no t v io la te Ben ne tt ’s Six th Am en dm en t ri gh t t o a jury tri al

.

to co m m it m ai l frau d. Fi r s t

, he arg ue s th at hi s m on ey -la un de rin g- co ns pi racy

co nv ic ti on “ hi ng es o n f

i n d i n g t h at

. . . [h e] co m m it te d m ai l frau d.” Eve n if th is

as se rti on were co rrec t, we reject Ben ne tt ’s arg um en t be cau se , as ex pl ai ne d ab ov e, th e Gov er n m en t pr es en te d am pl e ev id en ce to su pp or t hi s m ai l-f rau d co nv ic ti on

. W it h

reg ard to hi s m ai l-f

rau d- co ns pi racy co nv ic ti on , Ben ne tt arg ue s th at th e Gov ern m en t
fai le d to pr ov e an ov ert act in fu rth eran ce of th e co ns pi racy be cau se it fai le d to sh ow th at Ben ne tt r e c e i v e d th e Mar ch 16 ch eck

. Howev er, as ex pl ai ne d ab ov e, th e Gov ern m en t pr es en te d su ffi ci en t ev id en ce to pe rm it th e jury to co nc lu de th at Ben ne tt

rece iv ed th e Mar ch 16 ch eck

, whi ch co ns ti tu te s an ov ert act in fu rth e r a n c e o f t he

co ns pi racy. Thu s, we al so fin d Ben ne tt ’s su ffi ci en cy -o f-t he -ev id en ce ch al le ng es to
hi s co ns pi racy con vi ct io ns to lac k m eri t.

-1 1-4. Ef

fect of Cl ay to n’s Deat h

Ben ne tt pr es en ts th ree arg um en ts th at Cl ay to n’s de at h ne ces si ta te s rev ers al of

Ben ne tt ’s c o n v i ct io ns an d se nt en ce. W e fin d th at each of th es e arg um en ts la ck s

m eri t. Fi rs t, Ben ne tt arg ue s th at Cl ay to n’s de at h ab at ed ab in it io th e en ti re cri m in al

pr oc eed in g in th is cas e, th ereb y in va li da ti ng th e co nv ic ti on ag ai ns t Ben ne tt

. As no te d

in Part II.A ab ov e, th e cri m in al pr os ecu ti on ag ai ns t Cl ay to n was ab at ed by hi s de at h

on ap pe al

. Thi s ru le res ts on two rat io na le s: fir st

, th at a cri m in al de fen da nt sh ou ld no t

be de pr iv ed of th e rig ht to ch al le ng e hi s co nv ic ti on on a p p e a l, ev en by de at h; an d

se co nd

, th at th e pu ni ti ve pu rp os es of a co nv ic ti on an d se nt en ce can no t be se rv ed on ce

th e de fen da nt ha s di ed

. Uni te d S t a te s v. W ri gh t , 1 60 F.3 d 90 5, 90 8 (2 d Ci r. 19 98 ).

Obv io us ly, ne it he r of th es e rat io na le s su pp or ts ab at in g th e cri m in al pr oc eed in g as to

a de ceas ed de fen da nt ’s li vi ng co -d efen da nt s. Thu s, we de cl in e to co nf er up on

Ben ne tt th e in ex pl ic ab le win df al l t ha t h e se ek s.

Seco nd

, Ben ne tt arg ue s th at he ha s be en de pr iv ed of th e op po rtu ni ty to rel y on

th e “ ru le of co ns is te nc y .” Ci ti ng Gets y v. Mit ch el l

, 49 5 F.3 d 29 5, 30 7 (6 th Ci r. 20 07 )
(en ba nc ), Ben ne tt cl ai m s th at hi s co ns pi racy co nv ic ti on w o u l d be in va li da te d if

Cl ay to n’s co ns pi racy co nv ic ti on ha d be en in va li da te d on su ffi ci en cy -o f-t he -e vid en ce

gr ou nd s. Bu t ev en if Ben ne tt m ig ht ha ve be ne fit te d f o r t u it ou sl y fro m a fav or ab le

ou tc om e in Cl ay to n’s ap pe al

, he ha s no rig ht or en ti tl em en t to ap pe ll at e rev ie w of hi s

de ceas ed co -d efen da nt ’s co nv ic ti on

. He st il l can ch al le ng e—a nd ha s

ch al le ng ed

—t he su ffi ci en cy of th e ev id en ce pr es en te d ag ai ns t hi m

. Thu s, we can se e

no reas on why Ben ne tt ’s co nv ic ti on s are un de r mi n e d by th e fact th at we no lo ng er

wil l co ns id er Cl ay to n’s s uf fic ie nc y -o f-t he -ev id en ce ar gu m en t.

Thi rd

, Ben ne tt arg ue s th at Cl ay to n’s de at h ren de red in va li d th e di st ric t co ur t’s

ap pl ic at io n of a ro le -in -th e-o ffen se se nt en ci ng en ha nc em en t, se e USSG § 3B 1.1 (a),

whi ch was pre m is ed on Ben ne tt ’s par ti ci pa ti on in “ cri m in al act iv it y [th at ] in vo lv ed

fiv e o r m or e p art ic ip an ts or wa s ot he rwis e ex te ns iv e.” Ben ne tt arg ue s t ha t Cl ay to n

-1 2-c a n n o t b e c on si de red fo r pu rp os es of th e en ha nc em en t no w th at he is de ceas ed

,

th ereb y red uc in g t h e n u mber of pa rti ci pa nt s in th e frau du le nt sc he m e to fo ur

. Howev er, th e gu id el in es en ha nc em en t do es no t li m it it s ap pl ic at io n to pa rti ci pa nt s in

th e sc he m e who are li vi ng at th e ti m e th e se nt en ce is rev ie wed on ap pe al

. Cl ay to n

pa rti ci pa te d in th e sc he m e, an d hi s su bs eq ue nt de at h si m pl y do es no t alt er tha t fact

. Nor do es Cl ay to n’s de at h affe ct whe th er Ben ne tt ’s frau du le nt sc he m e was “ ot he rwis e

ex te ns iv e” whe n pe rp et rat ed

, whi ch th e pr es en te nc e in ve st ig at io n rep or t— ad op te d
by th e di st ric t co ur t— id en ti fie d as a ba si s fo r ap pl y in g th e en ha nc em en t to Ben ne tt

. Thu s, we re

ject B en ne tt ’s cha ll en ge to th e ap pl ic at io n o f § 3 B1 .1(a ).

C. Jen ni fer’ s App ea l

Je nn ife r ap pe al s th e di st ric t co ur t’s de ni al of he r m ot io n to se ve r he r tri al fro m

th at of Cl ay to n an d Ben ne tt

. Sh e do es no t arg ue on ap pe al th at sh e was m is joi ne d

un de r Fed eral Ru le of Cri m in al Pro ced ur e 8 bu t rat he r th at th e di st ric t co ur t erre d by

de nyin g he r req ue st fo r se ve ran ce pu rs ua nt to Ru le 14

. Acco rd in gl y , we rev ie w th e

di st ric t co ur t’s de ni al of he r m ot io n to se ve r fo r ab us e of di sc ret io n. Uni te d St at es v.

Man n , 68 5 F.3d 71 4, 71 8 (8 th Ci r. 20 12 ). “ [T]o warra nt se ve ran ce [un de r Ru le 14 ]

a de fen da nt m

us t s ho w ‘ real pre

jud ic e,’ tha t i s, ‘som et hi ng m or e th an th e m ere fact

th at he wou ld ha ve ha d a b e tt er ch an ce fo r acq ui tt al ha d he be en tri ed se pa rat el y .’ ”

Uni te d St at e s v. Mic kel

so n , 37 8 F.3 d 81 0, 81 7- 18 (8 th Ci r. 20 04 ) (q uo ti ng Uni te d

St at es v. Oak ie

, 12 F.3 d 14 36

, 14 41 (8 th Ci r. 19 93 )). “ A de fen da nt can de m on st rat e

real pr ejud ic e to hi s rig ht to a fai r tri al by sh owi ng (a ) h is de fen se is irr eco nc il ab le

wit h th at of hi s co -d efen da nt or ( b) th e jury wil l be un ab le to co m pa rtmenta li ze th e

ev id en ce as it rel at es to th e se pa rat e d efen da nt s.” Id

. at 8 18

.

Je nn ife r arg ue s th at th e jury co ul d no t be ex pe ct ed to co mp a r tm en ta li ze th e

e vi de nc e pr es en te d reg ard in g he r co -d efen da nt s’ frau du le nt sc he m es —s ch em es i n

whi ch sh e cl ai m s n o t to ha ve be en im pl ic at ed —wh en co ns id eri ng he r ta x- ev as io n

ch arg es

. W e ha ve ex pl ai ne d th at “ [t]he ris k of pr ejud ic e po se d by joi nt tri al s is be st

-1 3-cu red by care f u l a n d t h o r ou gh jury in st ru ct io ns .” Man n , 68 5 F.3 d at 71 8 (q uo ti ng

Mic kel so n , 37 8 F.3 d at 81 8)

. Here, th e d is tri ct co ur t’s fin al jury in st ru ct io ns

ad m on is he d th e jury: “ Keep in m in d th at y ou m us t gi ve se pa rat e co ns id erat io n to th e

e v i d en ce ab ou t each in di vi du al de fen da nt

. Each de fen da nt is en ti tl ed to be tre a t e d

se pa rat el y , an d y ou m

us t ret ur n a se pa rat e ve rd ic t fo r each de fen da nt .” We h a ve

fo un d co ns is te nt ly th at su ch an in st ru ct io n ad eq ua te ly cu red th e ris k th at th e jury

wou ld no t pro pe rly co m

pa rtmenta li ze the ev id en ce agai ns t j oi nt ly-tri ed de fen da nt s.

Se e, e.g

. , Uni te d St at es v. Mal le tt

, 75 1 F.3 d 90 7, 91 7 (8 th Ci r. 20 14 ); Man n , 68 5 F.3 d

at 71 8. In li gh t of th is li m it in g in st ru ct io n, we co nc lu de th at th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t

ab us e it s d is cret io n b y

de nyin g J en ni fer’s m ot io n fo r se ve ran ce u nd er Ru le 14

.

W e al so no te th at m

uc h of th e ev id en ce reg ard in g th e frau du le nt sc he m es was

rel ev an t to th e ta x- ev as io n ch arg es ag ai ns t Je nn ife r. A vi ol at io n of 26 U.S.C. § 72 01

req ui r e s “ th e ex is te nc e of a ta x de fic ie nc y .” Uni te d St at es v. Perr y , 71 4 F.3 d 57 0,

57 3 (8 th Ci r. 20 13 ) (q uo ti ng Sa ns on e v. Uni te d St at es , 38 0 U

. S

. 3 4 3

, 35 1 (1 96 5) ).

The ex is te nc e of a ta x de fic ie nc y de pe nd s, in tu rn , on whe th er th e in co m e th at

Je nn ife r fai le d to rep or t to th e In te rn al R e v en ue Serv ic e was ta xa bl e in co m e.

Evi de nc e sh owi ng th at th e in co m e res ul te d fro m th e frau d u l e nt sc he m es was

ne ces sa ry to sh ow th e so ur ce of th e in co m e an d th us th at th e in co m e w a s t a x a bl e.

The refo re, th e a d mi s s io n of ev id en ce reg ard in g th e frau du le nt sc he m es di d no t

warra nt se ve rin g Je nn ife r’s tri al fro m th at of Ben ne tt an d Cl ay to n. Se e Uni te d St at es

v. Lee

, 37 4 F.3 d 63 7, 64 7 (8 th Ci r. 20 04 ) (h ol di ng th at se ve ran c e w a s no t req ui red

whe re ev id en ce a d mi t t ed ag ai ns t co -d efen da nt was in de pe nd en tl y ad m it te d ag ai ns t

de fen da nt see ki ng sev eran ce).

Je nn ife r al so ch al le ng es th e di st ric t c o u r t ’s refu sa l to pr ov id e li m it in g

in st ru ct io ns im med i a t e ly aft er se ve ral wit ne ss es te st ifi ed at tri al

. Her pr op os ed

in st ru ct io ns wou ld ha ve in fo rm ed th e jury th at it sh ou ld no t co ns id er th os e wit ne ss es ’

te st im on y whe n co ns id er in g th e ch arg es ag ai ns t he r. W e rev ie w a di st ric t co ur t’s

de ci si on no t to gi ve a li m it in g in st ru ct io n fo r ab us e of di sc ret io n. Uni te d S t a te s v.

-1 4-Vela zq ue

z- Rive ra , 36 6 F.3 d 66 1, 66 6 (8 th Ci r. 2 0 0 4 )

. A di st ric t co ur t ne ed no t

in st ru ct th e jury reg ard in g each it em of ev id en ce at th e ti m e th e ev id en ce is ad m it te d

if th e co ur t pr ov id es an ap pr op ria te in st ru ct io n at th e cl os e of tri al

. Se e Uni te d St at es

v. Ki me , 9 9 F.3 d 87 0

, 8 8 1 ( 8 th Ci r. 19 96 ); Uni te d St at es v. Gar ri do , 9 95 F.2 d 80 8,

81 6- 17 (8 th Ci r. 19 93 ). As no te d ab ov e, th e in st ru ct io n gi ve n by th e di st ric t co ur t at

th e cl os e of tri al ad eq ua te ly in s tru ct ed th e jury to co m pa rtmenta li ze th e ev id en ce

pr es en te d ag ai ns t Cl ay to n an d Ben ne tt fro m th e ev id en ce pr es en te d ag ai ns t Je nn ife r.

Se e Mal le tt

, 75 1 F

. 3 d a t 9 1 7 ; Man n , 68 5 F.3 d at 71 8. In ad di ti on , th e in st ru ct io ns

sp eci fic al ly id en ti fie d wh i c h d efen da nt was ch arg ed wit h each of fen se , fu rth er

rei nf or ci ng to th e jury th at th e frau d u l e n t sc he m es sh ou ld no t be co ns id ered

im pr op erl y whe n as se ss in g Je nn ife r’s gu il t on th e ta x- ev as io n ch arg e s ag ai ns t he r.

Thu s, th e d is tri ct co ur t d id no t ab us e it s d is cret io n b y de cl in in g t o g iv e th e li m it in g

in st ru ct io ns req ue st ed by Jen ni fer.

II I. Co ncl us io n

Fo r th e fo reg oi ng reas on s, we va cat e Cl ay to n’s co nv ic ti on s an d rem an d hi s

cas e to th e d is tri ct co ur t wit h in st ru ct io ns to di sm is s th e in di ct m en t as it pe rta in s t o

hi m . Howev er, we aff

irm Ben ne tt ’s con vi ct io ns an d s en te nc e, as well as J en ni fer’s

co nv ic ti on s.

BEAM, Ci rcu it Ju dg e, co nc ur rin g a nd di ss en ti ng

.

I co nc ur in th e jud gm en t of th e co ur t ex cep t fo r it s affi rm an ce of th e m ai l frau d

co nv ic ti on

. The li m it at io ns pe rio d on th e m ai l frau d co ns pi racy di d no t be gi n to ru n

un ti l th e la st ov ert act in fu rth eran ce of th e co ns pi racy ha d oc cu rred

, Uni te d St at es v.

Dol an , 1 2 0 F.3 d 85 6, 86 4 (8 th Ci r. 19 97 ), whi ch act was , of co ur se , su bs eq ue nt to

Mar ch 16

, 20 05

. The li mi t a t i o ns pe rio d fo r th e m ai l frau d ch arg e it se lf, ho wev er,

co m m en ced on Mar ch 1 6, 20 05

, th e da te th e la st ch eck was pl aced in th e m ai l.

Uni te d St at es v. Pem

be rto n, 12 1 F.3 d 1 1 5 7

, 1 1 6 3 (8 th Ci r. 19 97 ). Si nc e al l of th e

-1 5-ch arg es at i ss ue in th is pro se cu ti on were i ni ti at ed when th e in di ct m en t was fil ed on

Mar ch 17 , 20 10 , th e m ai l fr au d c ha rg e m us t b e d is m is se d a s u nt im el y

.

The co ur t co nt en ds th at Ben ne tt 's arg um en t co nc ern in g th e im po rta nc e of th e

m ai li ng da te of th e ch eck "d eco nt ex tu al iz es " th is co ur t's refe ren ce to su ch ha pp en in g

in Pem be rto n. I d is ag ree.

The di st ric t co ur t, at th e go ve r n men t 's ur gi ng , ad op te d th e Si xt h Ci rcu it 's

am bi gu ou s reas on in g in Uni te d St at es v. Cro ss le y , 22 4 F.3 d 84 7, 85 9 (6 th Ci r. 20 00 ),

on ly b a r e l y ack no wled gi ng Pem be rto n whi ch cl earl y st at es "[f ]or m ai l frau d, th e

rel ev an t da te [fo r th e st at u t e o f l im it at io ns ] is th e da te of th e m ai li ng ." 12 1 F.3 d at

11 63

. And

, th e Seco nd

, Thi rd an d S ev en th Ci rcu it s each ag ree wit h th is an al y si s.

Uni te d St at es v. Eis en , 97 4 F.2 d 24 6, 26 3 (2 d Ci r. 19 92 ); Uni te d St at es v. Hof feck er,

53 0 F.3 d 13 7, 15 7- 58 (3 d Ci r. 20 08 ); Uni te d St at es v. Dun n, 96 1 F.2 d 64 8, 65 0 (7 th

Ci r. 19 92 ). So

, it se ems , d e co nt ex tu al iz at io n, if an y ha s oc cu rred

, ru ns in th e

di rect io n of th e Si xt h Ci rcu it an d th e di st ric t co ur t an d no t th e pr eced en t es ta bl is he d

in Pem be rto n.

Acco rd in gl y , I wou ld rev ers e th e di st ric t co ur t's ho ld in g to th e co nt rary an d

rem an d th is m at te r fo r res en te nc in g of Ben ne tt wit ho ut co ns id erat io n of th e m ai l

frau d c ha rg e.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-1 6-