FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V EN T H C IR C U IT J ULY 16, 2008 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N os. 07- 1130 5 and 0 7- 1162 1 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C. Docket N o. 05-60149 -CR- JIC UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us ROBERT MC KAY, MIC HAEL MCKAY, Defen da nt s- App el la nt s.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ Appeals fr om

the United State s District Court fo r the S outhe rnD istri ct

of F lor ida

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ( Ju ly 1 6, 200 8) Be fo re T JO FL A T , D U BIN Aand B L A CK , Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M:Cic c are lli ple d guil ty to o ne c ount o f t

he ft fr om a n e mpl oye e pe ns ion

fu nd and wa s 1 se nte nc e d to fo ur

y e ars ’ p ro batio n. Ly

nc h w a s tr ie d s e pa

ra te ly and fo un d guil ty

of RI CO conspirac y

and wa s sentence d to 30 months’ imprisonm ent. He ha s appea led his conviction and s e n t e n c e s e p ar at e l y. 2 Appe llants Mi ch ae l M cK ay and R obe rt

Mc K ay w er e ind ic te d, a lon g w ith Ph ill ip C ic care lli and J am es L ync h, by a fe deral grand j ury

in the Southern District 1 of F lor ida in re la tio n to the ir

a ct ivi tie s c ontro lli ng and f inanc ia lly e xpl oit ing the A m er ic anMari tim e O ff

ic er s U nio n ( “ the U nio n” ) an d it s m em be r be ne fi t pl an s (“ th e Pl an s” ). I. Fo llo w ing a21- day

j ur y tr ia l, the de fe ndants w er e co nvi ct ed of vari ous ch ar ge s st em

m ing f ro m the ir a ct ion s inc ondu ct ing the a ff ai rs of the U nio n and the Pl an s th ro ugh a pa tte rnof r ac ke te er ing , w hic h in cl ude d a ct s of m isc ondu ct

in the fo llo w ing are as : ( 1) pol iti ca l c am pa ignc ontri but ion s; ( 2) hou sin g le as ed by the Pl an s; ( 3) f

unds f or e nte rt ai nm en t and e xpe nse s us ed by the P lans; ( 4) U nio n el ec tio ns; and ( 5) e xpe nse r ep orts. R obe rt Mc K ay , the se cr et ar

y -tre as ur er

of the Union, and Michael Mc Kay , the pre sident of the Union, we re c onvi cted of a Racketee r Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U. S. C. § 196 2(c) (“ RI CO ”) c onsp ir ac y , the obj ec t of w hic h w as to fi nanc ia lly e xpl oit the U nio n and the P lans f

or pe rs ona l ga in. F oll ow ing the c onvi ct ion s, the gov er nm en t so ught3

forfe iture of the am ount of illicit proceeds generated by the rac keteering enterprise,
as w el l a s th ose pr oc ee ds g en er at ed by the m ai l f

ra ud and e m

be zz le m en t; the gove rn m en t a lso inc lud ed the sa lari es pa id b y

the U nio n to both R obe rt and Mi ch ae l i n it s lo ss c al cu la tio n. T he gov er nm en t a sse rt ed

that be ca use Ro be rt

and Mi ch ae l w er e co nvi ct ed

of the RI CO c onsp ir ac y

c harg e, the y

w er e j oin tly

and severally liable for the f

ull am ount of the proceeds generated from that enterprise. The district court sentenced Michae l to 78 m onth s’ im prisonm ent, three y ears supe rv is edrel eas e, $2 71 ,04 0.2 1 i n re st it ut io n, an d a$5 25 .00 ass es sm en t. The district court sentenced Robert to 15 m onth s’ im prisonm ent, three y ears supe rv ise d r el ea se , $27 1, 040. 21 i n r es tit uti on, and a

$45 0. 00 a sse ssm en t. T he dis tr ic t c ourt a lso iss ue d f ina l j udgm en ts o f fo rf

ei tur e ag ai nst

Mi ch ae l i n the a m ount

of $2, 002, 275. 71, and R obe rt in the a m ount

of $50 9, 744. 71, w ith Mi ch ae l and R obe rt

j oin tly and s ev er al ly

li ab le f or the $50 9, 744. 71. T he de fe ndants the n pe rf

ec te d th ei r ap pe al s, w hic h w e co nsol idate d.

II. T he iss ue s pr es en te d onappe al are : (1) Whether sufficient evidence supports th e defe ndants’ RI CO conspiracy
co nvi ct ion s f

or c ontro lli ng and e xpl oit ing the U nio n and i ts a sso ci at ed P lans.4

(2) Whether the district court abused its d iscretion in ins tructing the jury
re gard ing the pr oof

the gov er

nm en t m ust de m onstrate to es ta

bli sh tha t the de fe ndants w ill fu lly

j oin ed the RI CO c onsp ir ac y

and i n de ny ing the de fe ndants ’
re que ste d in str

uc tio n r eg ar din g th ei r al le ge d go od f ai th r el ianc e on the a dvi ce of U nio n c ouns el
. (3 ) Whe the r suf

fi ci en t e vid en ce sup porte d th e de fe ndants ’ r es pe ct ive m ai l fr au d and e m

be zz le m en t c onvi ct ion s. (4) Whether the district court properly apportionedthe defendants’ financial
re spon sib ili ty

f or the RI CO c onsp ir ac y

in the ir r es pe ct ive f

or fe iture and s en te nc ing
or de rs . (5) Whether the district court abused its d iscretion in deny ing a m istrial
re gard ing the gov er

nm en t’ s r eb utt al c om

m en ts a bout de fe nse c ouns el ’ s a tte m

pt t o explain certain docum entary evidence. III . W e re vie wc la im s f

or ins uf fi ci en cy of the e vid en ce in the li ght

m ost favor ab le to the gov er

nm en t, and a

de fe ndant’ s c onvi ct ionw ill not be ove rt ur ne d if
a re as ona ble j ur y c oul d have f

ound the e vid en ce e sta

bli she d gu ilt

be y ond a reas on ab le do ub t. United States v. B rantl ey , 68 F. 3d 12 83, 1287 (11t h Cir. 1995 ).5

Adis tr ic t c ourt’ s r ef

usa l t o gi ve aj ur

y ins tr uc tio n r eque ste d by

the de fe nse is
rev ie wedforab us e o f di sc ret io n o nl y . United States v. M orales , 978 F . 2d 6 50, 652 (11th Cir. 1992). T his c ourt r ev ie w s denov o the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s le ga l c onc lus ion s r eg ar din g fo rfei tu re an d s en te nc in g a ndth e d is tri ctco ur t’s fa ctua l fi nd in gs forcle ar erro r. U nit ed Sta tes v . B row ne , 50 5 F .3d12 29 , 12 78 (11 th Cir . 20 07 ), cert. denied , ___ S. Ct
. ___ , 76 U
. S. L . W . 351 2 ( U . S. Jun . 23, 200 8) ; Uni te d S ta te s v. Will ia ms , 340 F. 3d 12 31, 1234-35 (11th Cir. 2003).

“ T he de ci sio n to gr an t a

m istri al li es w ith in the sound d isc re tio n of the [district court] since [it] is in the best po sition to evaluate the prej udicial effec t of a statem ent or evidence on the jur y .” U nit ed Sta tes v . Sat te rfi el

d , 743 F . 2d 8 27, 848 (1 1thCi r. 198 4) ( quot ed

in United States v. M

endez , 117 F. 3d 48 0, 484 (11th Cir. 1997 )). IV. Af ter re viewing the record, and reading the parties’ briefs, we conclude that th ere i s n o m eri t t o a ny of th e arg um en ts de fen da nt s m ak e in th is ap pe al , andwe the re fo re a ff

irm the ir c onvi ct ion s, the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s f or fe iture or de r, and Michael’ s sentence.6

The r ecord dem onstrates that at trial the governm ent presented direct testim ony , r ecorded conversations, and docum entary evidence that m ore than supp orted the j ury ’ s verdict finding Michael and Robert guilty of the RIC O
co ns pi racy andth ei r res pe ct iv e ch al le ng es to th e su bs ta nt iv e co un ts of c on vi ct io n. A s of fi ce rs and l ea de rs of

the U nio n, Mi ch ae l and R obe rt use d th ei r posi tio ns t o explo it the U nio n and the P lans f or the ir ow n f inanc ia l and p oli tic al be ne fi ts w itha de tr im en t t o th e U nio n and the P lans. W e al so c onc lud e fr om

the r ec or d th at

the dis tr ic t c ourt di d no t a buse it s dis cr et ionin giv ing the pa tte rnRI CO j ur y ins tr uc tio ns p ro pe rl y

se tti ng f orth the pr oo f req ui redto est ab li sh a de fen da nt ’s wil li ng ag reem en t t o jo in th e co ns pi racy. W e al so c onc lud e that the dis tr ic t c ourt a ct ed w ith in i ts d isc re tio n inde ny ing a re que ste d in str

uc tio n r eg ar din g th e de fe ndants ’ a lle ge d r el ianc e on the a dvi ce of
co unse l. T he ins tr

uc tio n w as not

sup porte d by

the e vid en ce and w as a lr ea dy ad equa te ly

c ove re d by

the goo d f

ai th j ur y ins tr uc tio ns. Ro be rt c ha lle nge s th e fo rf

ei tur e or de r hol din g hi m

j oin tly and s ev er al ly lia ble f or f unds m isa

ppr opr ia te d by

Mi ch ae l, arg uin g th at

he c anonl y

be he ld l ia

ble for funds related to his own em bezzlem ent count of conv iction and n ot RICO pr ed ic at e ac ts f

or w hic h he c la im s he w as not r es pons ibl e. Mi ch ae l c ha lle nge s th e7

inc lus ionof

his U nio n sa lary

in his f or fe iture or de r an d inthe f ra ud l oss a m ount s used to calculate his sentence. Ro be rt a lso c ha lle nge s hi s le ga l l ia bil ity f or Mi ch ae l’ s m an ipu la tio n of the Union and Plans expendi tures, which Robert distin guish es from his adm itted lia bil ity f or the a m ount s he w as f

ound to have pe rs ona lly

e m be zz le d f ro m the Uni on . W e co nc lud e fr om

the r ec or d th at

Ro be rt w as pr ope rl y

he ld j oin tly

and severally liable for Michae l’ s im

proper personal expense charges in his forfeiture
or de r. R obe rt

w as c onvi ct ed

of the RI CO c onsp ir ac y , and o ne of the obj ec ts o f the
co nspi ra cy

w as f inanc ia l e xpl oit at ionof

the U nio n and the P lans. W e al so c onc lud e that M ic ha el ’ s f or fe iture or de r an d gu ide lin es se nte nc ing
ca lc ulatio ns p ro pe rl y

inc lud ed the a m ount

of his U nio n sa lary . U nli ke r es tit uti on or de rs , f or fe iture and R IC O se nte nc ing de te rm inatio ns are int en de d to take int o ac co unt the de fe ndant’ s il l- gotte n ga ins , and n ot t o e xam ine the ne t c ost and b e n e f i t s t o th e v i c t i m. Fi na lly , w e co nc lud e fr om the r ec or d th at

the dis tr ic t c ourt di d no t a buse it s di sc ret io n i n d en y in g am is tri al reg ard in g t he go ve rn m en t’s re bu tt al co m m en ts . Sp ec if ic al ly , Ro be rt

arg ue s th at

the dis tr ic t c ourt a

buse d it s di sc re tio n innot gr an tin g am istri al on the ba sis of r eb utt al arg um en ts b y

the gov er

nm en t r ep orte dly8

shi ft ing the bur de n of

pr oof or c om m en tin g onRo be rt ’ s f

ai lur e to t es tif

y . T he dis tr ic t c ourt de nie d R obe rt ’ s m oti on f or am istri al , f

ind ing that “ it w as af

ai r co m m en t o n t he arg um en t o f op po si ng co un se l.” (DE: 34 0: 16 4- 65 ). W e do n ot r ea d th e pr ose cu tor ’ s is olate d r em ar k a s in te ndi ng t o c om

m en t on Ro be rt ’ s f

ai lur e to t es tif

y or to shi ft the bur de n of

pr oof
. T he pr ose cu tor

f ai rl y co m m en te d onde fe nse c ouns el ’ s a tte m pt t o e xpl ai n th e ev ide nc e co nc er nin g Ro be rt ’ s r es taur ant e xpe nse vou ch er s. Mo re ove r, the dis tr ic t c ourt i nstru ct ed the j ur y r eg ar din g th e gove rn m en t’ s burd enof pr oof , and the gov er

nm en t ac kn o wl ed g edi t s b u rd en . Vi ew edi n co n t ex t , we co n cl u d e t h atth e g o v ern m en t ’s
co m m en t onde fe nse c ouns el ’ s f ai lur e to e xpl ai n th e re sta ur an t r ec ei pts did

not co nf use the j ur

y r eg ar din g th e bur de n of

pr oof and c annot

be r ea d a s in te ndi ng t o co m m en t o n R ob ert ’s fai lu re t o t es ti fy
. See U nited Sta tes v. He rnan dez , 145 F . 3d 1433 , 143 8- 39 ( 11th C ir
. 199 8) ( not ing that r ev er sa l of c onvi ct ionis re qui re d if

the pr ose cu tor ’ s c om

m en ts w er e im

pr ope r an d pr ej udi ce d th e de fe ndant’ s su bst an tiv e rights). Fo r the above -s ta te d r ea sons , w e af fi rm the de fe ndants ’ c onvi ct ion s, the district court’ s order of f

orfeiture and Michael’ s sentence. AFFIRMED.