2009 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 12-9-2009 

# U SA v . D e an P l a sk

ett P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 08-3531

F o l low thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi l l a nova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e a nd 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 l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit or y

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2009 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit or y

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

w . vi l l a no va . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " U SA v . D e a n P l aske tt " (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 126. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a nova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/126

### - 1- NOT P 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. 08- 3531

_____________ UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. DEA N C . PLASKETT,

A ppel l ant

________________ N o. 08- 3532

________________ UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. M A RC A . BI G G S, A p p e llan t.

_____________ O n A p p e a l f

ro m th e U n ited S tate s D istric t C o u rt fort he D i s t r i ctof the V i r gi n I s l ands ( D . C . N o. 2007- cr - 60) D i s t r i ctJ udge: H onor abl e C ur t i s V . G om ez

_____________ S u b m itted U n d er T h ir d C ir cu itL . A . R . 3 4 . 1 (a),

D ece m ber2 , 2009 B efore: M cK E E , F U E N T E S , and N Y G A A R D , C i rcui tJudg es.T h e D istric t C o u rt e x e rc ise d ju risd ictio n p u rsu a n t to 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 2 3 1 a s P las k e tt 1 a n d B ig g s w e re c h a rg e d w ith o f f e n s e s a g a in s t th e U n ite d S ta te s . U ni t ed Stat es v. C ar tw r ight , 359 F. 3d 281, 285 ( 3d C i r . 2004) . A s t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s j udgm ent s of c o n v ictio n a n d se n ten c e w e re f in a l d e c isio n s, w e h a v e ju risd ictio n o v e r th e a p p e a ls pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 1291. 

### I d.

- 2- ( O pi ni on Fi l ed: D ece m ber9, 2009 ) OPI NI ON O F THE COURT FU E N T E S, C i r cui tJ udge: A p p ell an ts, D ea n C . P lask ettan d M arc . A B igg s, ap p ea l from the D istri ct C o u rt ’s rul i ng deny i ng t hei rpos t - t r i al m ot i ons as w el l as t he under l y i ng and pr ece di ng or der s and rul i ngs byt he D i s t r i ctC our taddr es s i ng t he i s s ues r ai s ed i n t he pos t - t r i al m ot i ons . B i ggs a ls o c h a lle n g e s a s p e c ts o f th e ju ry c h a rg e a n d th e s e n te n c e im p o s e d b yth e D is tr ic t C o u rt . Fort he r eas ons t hatfol l ow , w e w i l l aff i r m t he rul i ngs of the D i s t r i ctC our tand app el l ants ’ convict i on s and sen t ences. 1 

### I. Be c aus e we wri t e pri m ari l y for the part i e s , we onl y

di s c us s the fa c t s and proceedi ng s t o the exte nt nece ss ar y fo r the re soluti onof

the c as e. Pl as ket tand B i ggs , w er e, r es pect i vel y , t he C om m i s s i onerof the V i r gi n I s l ands D epart m entof Pl anni ng and N atur al R es our ces and the C om m i s s i onerof Pr oper t yand Pr ocur ement . T heyw er e cha r ged w i t h par t i ci pat i ng i n an el abor at e br i beryand ki ckbac k s cheme w i t h ot hergovernm entoffi ci al s and compl i ci tbus i nes s ow ner s . T he I ndi ctm ent

### - 3-

a lleg e d th a t th e m e m b e rs o f th e sc h e m e u se d f

ictitio u s a n d re a l co m p a n ies to o b tain governm entcontr act s w or t h m or e than $1. 4 m i l l i on and pr ogr es s paym ent s of m or e than $1 m i l l i on, des pi t e l i t t l e orno contr actper for m ance . A tt r i al , t he keygovernm entw i t nes s w as H ol l i s G r i ffi n, t he form erD i r ect orof the D i vi s i on of Envi r onm ent al Pr ot ect i on. G r i ffi n, a coope r at i ng w i t nes s and al l eged cocons pi r at or , pr ovi ded the cr i t i cal t es t i m onyr egar di ng t he al l eged pa ym entof br i bes at t he hea r tof the ca s e. Fol l ow i ng t r i al , Pl as ket tand B i ggs w er e ea ch convi ct ed of one countof fe der al pr ogr am bri bery ; Pl as ket tw as al s o convi ct ed of tw o count s of obs t ruct i on of j us t i ce. T heyw er e ac qui t t ed of the r emai ni ng char ges agai ns tt hem. T he D i s t r i ctC our ts ent ence d Pl as ket tand B i ggs t o 108 m ont hs and 84 mont hs i n pr i s on, res pecti vely . In addit i on , t he D i stri ctC ou rti m po sed personal m on eyj ud gm ents against t hem

— $1 , 08 6, 23 7 ag ai nstP l asket tand $9 60 , 48 2 ag ai nstB i gg s. O n appea l , Pl as ket tand B i ggs r ai s e a numberof cha l l enges t o t hei rconvi ct i ons and s ent ence s . W e r evi ew eac h chal l enge i n tur n. 

### II. P las k e tt ch a llen g e s th e D istric t C o u rt’s e x c lu sio n o f tap e s o f re c o rd e d p h o n e c a lls betw een hi m s el f and G r i ffi n. T he C our trul ed thatw hi l e por t i ons of the t apes coul d be u se d to re b u t G rif

f in ’s d ire c t tes tim o n y , o v e ra ll, th e tap e s w e re h e a rsa ya n d in a d m iss ib le o n d ir ec t exa m ination o f P lask ett . T h e C o u rtalso co n clud ed that the e v iden ce w as m o re p rejud ici al th an p rob ati v e. P lask ettarg u es th at th e D istri ct C o u rt ’s ruli n g s w ere

### - 4-

err oneous , buthe has notpr ovi ded ei t herr epr oduct i ons of the r ecor ded conve r s at i ons or w r i t t en tr ans cr i pt s fort he pane l t o r evi ew . W i t houtt he ca pabi l i t yt o exami ne the evi dence ati s s ue, t he pane l cannotrul e on the mer i t s of Pl as ket t ’ s ar gum ent s r egar di ng t he t apes and dee m s s uch ar gum ent s w ai ved. A w e e k b e f

o re trial, th e g o v e rn m e n t se n t d e f e n se c o u n se l a le tter p u rsu a n t to Feder al R ul e of Cri m i nal Pr ocedur e 16( a) t hatdi s cl os ed thatG r i ffi n had us ed i l l egal drugs and had s oughtdrug r ehabi l i t at i on t r eatm enton t w o s epar at e occ as i ons ; t he g o v e rn m e n t d id n o t p ro v id e d e tails o f o r m e d ica l re c o rd s f

ro m e ith e r tre a tm e n t. P las k e tt a n d B ig g s a rg u e th a t th e tim in g o f th is d isc lo su re a n d th e f a ilu re to p ro v id e m o re d e tails vi ol at ed B r ady v. M

ar yland , 373 U . S. 83 ( 1963) , and G igl i o v. U ni t ed Stat es , 40 5 U. S. 150 ( 1972) . W hen a mot i on fora new t r i al i s bas ed on a B r ady cl ai m , w e “c onducta de novo r evi ew of the di s t r i ctcour t ’ s concl us i ons of l aw as w el l as a cl ear l yerr oneous r evi ew of anyfi ndi ngs of fa ct . ” U n itedS ta tes v . P e lu llo , 3 9 9 F . 3 d 1 9 7 , 2 0 2 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) (i n terna l qu o tat ion m ark s & cit ati o n s o m itted). I n B r ady , t he Supr eme C our thel d t hat“s uppr es s i on byt he pr os ecut i on of evi dence favor abl e t o an ac cus ed upon r eques tvi ol at es due pr oces s w her e the evi dence i s m at er i al ei t hert o gui l tort o puni s hm ent. . . . ” 373 U . S. at87. T he Supr eme C our thas fur t her e lab o ra ted th a t su p p re ss e d “ e v id e n c e is m a ter ial o n lyif th e re is a re a so n a b le p ro b a b ili ty th a t, ha d th e e v id e n c e b e e n d isc lo se d to th e d e f e n se , the re su lt o f

th e p ro c e e d in g w o u ld have be en di ffe r ent . A ‘ r eas onabl e pr obabi l i t y ’ i s a pr obabi l i t ys uffi ci entt o underm i ne

### - 5-

confi dence i n t he out come. ” U ni t ed Stat es v. B agl ey , 4 7 3 U . S . 6 6 7 , 6 8 2 (19 8 5 ). A s s um i ng ar

guendo t hatt he det ai l s of G r i ffi n’ s drug us e and s ubs equentt r eatm ent w er e fa vor abl e t o Pl as ket tand B i ggs as i m peac hm entevi dence and thats uch evi dence w as s uppr es s ed, t her e w as no B r ady v io latio n a s th e e v id e n c e w a s n o t m a ter ial. P las k e tt and B i ggs conce de thatt heyhad s om e know l edge of G r i ffi n’ s drug us e and r ehabi l i t at i on t reatm ent, and t heyused thi s evi den ce t o cross- exam i ne G ri ffi n an d to di scr edithim as a w i t nes s dur i ng t hei ropeni ng and cl os i ng s t at ement s . T he more det ai l ed i nfor m at i on s oughtbyPl as ket tand B i ggs “w oul d nothave putt he w hol e ca s e i n s uch a di ffe r entl i ght as t o underm i ne conf

i dence i n t he ver di ct , and w oul d have be en mer el ycumul at i ve. ” U ni t ed Stat es v. Johns on , 1 9 9 F .3 d 1 2 3 , 1 2 8 (3 d C ir. 1 9 9 9 ); accor d C onl ey v . U ni t ed St at es , 4 1 5 F .3 d 1 8 3 , 1 8 9 (1 st C ir. 2 0 0 5 ) (“ S u p p re ss e d im p e a c h m e n t ev id e n c e is im m aterial u n d er B r ady . . . i f the evi dence i s cumul at i ve ori m peac hes on a col l at er al i s s ue. Suppr es s ed i m peac hm entevi dence , i f cumul at i ve of s i m i l ari m peac hm ent e v id e n c e u s e d a t tr ia l . . . is s u p e rf lu o u s a n d th e re f

o re h a s littl e , if

a n y , p ro b a tiv e v a lu e .” ( i nt ernal ci t at i ons om i t t ed) ) . T he fa ctt hatt he evi dence of G r i ffi n’ s drug abus e w as cumul at i ve of e vi dence al r eadypos s es s ed byPl as ket tand B i ggs di s t i ngui s hes t he i ns t ant c a s e f r o m U ni t ed Stat es v. R obi ns on , — F. 3d — , 2009 W L 3358158 ( 10t h C i r . O ct . 20, 2009) , on w hi ch Pl as ket tand B i ggs r el y . I n R obi ns on , t he courtexpl i ci t l yhel d t hatt he s uppr es s ed evi dence “w as notcumul at i ve. . . . N one of the[] avenue s of i m peac hm ent [bas ed on the s uppr es s ed evi dence ] i s dupl i cat i ve of thos e R obi ns on w as abl e and a l l ow ed

### - 6-

t o pur s ue att r i al . ” I

d. at*7 ( ci t at i on om i t t ed) . I n contr as t , Pl as ket tand B i ggs coul d and di d at t empt t o i m peac h G r i ffi n bas ed on hi s drug us e, r ender i ng t he al l egedl ys uppr es s ed evi dence dupl i cat i ve. T he D i s t r i ctC our tcorr ect l yconcl uded thatt he governm entdi d not vi ol at e B r ady o r G ig lio . 

### Aft e r tri a l , Bi ggs m ove d for

a c qui tt a lon the gr oundt hatt he evi dence w as i ns uffi ci entt o s uppor thi s convi ct i on forfede r al pr ogr am bri bery , s peci fi cal l yt hatt he evidence d i d n ot es t abli sh t hat he act ed w i t h co rrup ti ntentor that he r ecei ved a cash p ay m en t i n co n n ec ti o n w ith a c o n tr ac t i n o r ab o u t m id-Jan u ary2 0 0 3 . T h e D istri ct C o u rt d en ied th e m o ti o n . B igg s “m u st ov erc o m e a ‘ve ryh ea v yb u rde n ’ t o o v erturn the ju ry ’s ver di ctfori ns uffi ci encyof the evi dence . ” U ni t ed Stat es v. C uevas - R eye s , 572 F. 3d 119, 121 ( 3d C i r . 2009) ( quot i ng U ni t ed Stat es v. D ent , 1 4 9 F . 3 d 1 8 0 , 1 8 7 ( 3 d C i r . 1 9 9 8 ) ) . We s us t ai n a def

endant ’ s convi ct i on i f, vi ew i ng t he evi dence i n t he l i ghtm os tfavor abl e t o t he governm ent , “‘ any r at i onal t r i erof fa ctcoul d have f ound t he es s ent i al el ement s of the cr i m e bey ond a r eas onabl e doubt. . . . ’ ” U ni t ed Stat es v. V

oight , 89 F. 3d 1050, 1080 ( 3d C i r . 1996) ( quot i ng J

a c k so n v . V irg in ia , 443 U . S. 307, 319 ( 1979) ) . B as ed on the r ecor d, a r eas onabl e j ur ycoul d have f ound t hatt he governm entpr oved B i ggs ’ s corrupti nt entand r ece i ptof a c as h paym enti n oraboutm i d- J anuary2003. For t he r eas ons s t at ed byt he D istric t C o u rt, w e w ill a f f irm th e d e n ial o f

B ig g s’s m o tio n f

o r ju d g m e n t o f

a c q u itt a l. B ig g s ra ise s tw o c h a llen g e s to th e ju ryc h a rg e . “W e e x e rc ise p len a ryre v iew in det erm i ni ng ‘ w hethert he j ur yi ns t ruct i ons s t at ed the pr operl egal s t andar d. W e r evi ew

### - 7-

t he r efus al t o gi ve a pa r t i cul ari ns t ruct i on ort he w or di ng of i ns t ruct i ons forabus e of di s cr et i on. ’ ” U

ni t ed Stat es v. Leahy , 445 F. 3d 634, 642 ( 3d C i r . 2006) ( quot i ng U ni t ed S ta tes v . C o

y le , 63 F. 3d 1239, 1245 ( 3d C i r . 1995) ) . I n ourr evi ew , “w e cons i dert he t ot al i t yof the i ns t ruct i ons and nota part i cul ars ent ence orpar agr aph i n i s ol at i on. ” I d. (i n terna l qu o tat ion m ark s & cit ati o n o m itted). Fi r s t , B i ggs ar gues t hatt he D i s t r i ctC our terr ed i n deny i ng hi s r eques tt o i ns t ruct the ju ryo n g o o d fa ith ; th is argu m en t i s w ith o u t m erit . W e h av e h eld th at “a d istri ct co u rt does notabus e i t s di s cr et i on i n deny i ng a good fa i t h i ns t ruct i on w her e the i ns t ruct i ons gi ven al r eadycont ai n a s peci fi c s t at ementof the governm ent ’ s bur den t o pr ove the el ement s of a ‘ know l edge’ cr i m e. ” Leahy , 445 F. 3d at651 ( ci t at i on om i t t ed) . I n t he in sta n t ca se , the D istric t C o u rt’s c h a rg e c lea rlyd e f in e d th e e lem e n ts o f

th e c rim e s w ith w h ic h B ig g s w a s c h a rg e d , in c lu d in g th e in te n t e le m e n t. I n lig h t o f th e s e in s tru c tio n s , a good fai t h char ge w as “unnec es s aryand r edundant . I f the j ur yfound that[B i ggs ] had act ed i n good fai t h, i tnece s s ar i l ycoul d nothave f ound t hat[he] had ac t ed w i t h t he r equi s i t e s ci ent er . ” I

d. T hus , t he D i s t r i ctC our tdi d noterri n fai l i ng t o char ge the j ur yon good fai t h. Second, B i ggs cont ends t hatt he D i s t r i ctC our ti ncorr ect l yi ns t ruct ed the j ur yon fede r al pr ogr am bri bery , fai l i ng t o pr oper l yexpl ai n t he r equi s i t e m ens r ea . A s B ig g s d id n o t o b je c t to th e c h a rg e a t tr ia l, w e re v ie w f o r p la in e rr o r. Un i t e d

S t a t e s v . Wi l l i a ms , 464 F. 3d 443, 445 ( 3d C i r . 2006) . B i ggs w as char ged w i t h t hr ee c ount s of fe der al pr ogr am

### - 8-

br i bery , i n vi ol at i on of 18 U . S. C . § 666( a) ( 1) ( B ) . T he j ur yi ns t ruct i ons del i ver ed byt he D istri ct C o u rtw ere co n sist en t— v irtuallyiden ti ca l— w ith the T h ir d C ir cu itm o d el j u ry i ns t ruct i ons forSol i ci t at i on of a Bri be byan A gentof a Pr ogr am R ece i vi ng Feder al Funds ( 18 U . S. C . § 666( a) ( 1) ( B ) ) . T he D i s t r i ctC our tal s o el abor at ed on the m ens r ea r equi r ed for a viol at i on of the st atute, cl ari fy i ng w hat i tm eans t o act “corrup t l y , ” as foll ow s:

A p u b lic o f

f icia l d e m a n d s, se e k s, o r re c e iv e s a th in g o f v a lu e c o rru p tly i f t he o ffi ci al accep t s the i t em kn ow i ng l y and i ntent i on al l y , w i t h the purpo se ei t herof ac compl i s hi ng an unl aw ful end orl aw ful r es ul t , orof ac compl i s hi ng s om e otherw i s e l aw ful end orl aw ful r es ul t infl uence d byt he r ece i ptof the t hi ng of val ue. C or ruptact s ar e nor m al l ym ot i vat ed byhope orexpec t at i on of ei t her fin an cial ga in o r oth er b en ef itto o n e’s se lf o r som e a id o r pro fitto an o ther. In c o n sid e rin g th is e lem e n t, rem e m b e r th a t it is th e d e f e n d a n t’s in ten t, atl east i n par t , t o be i nfl uence d orr ew ar ded, w hi ch i s i m por t ant , nothi s or t he V i rgi n Isl and s G ov ernm ent’ s or hi s agenc y ’s subsequ ent act i on s. T hus , t he pr os ecut i o n does nothave t o pr ove thatt he def endant r ece i ved t he bri be or t hat t he bri be ac tual l yi nfl uence d t he G overnm entof the V i r gi n I s l ands , oranyagenc yt her eof. Itis n o t ev en n ec essa ry that the d ef en d an t h ad the au tho ri tyto p erf o rm th e a c t so u g h t. A l s o, i f y ou fi nd t hatt he def endantacc ept ed the paym entw i t h t he i nt entt o be r ew ar ded for a deci s i on al r eady m ade, i t does not m at t er t hatt he paym entw as notacc ept ed ors ol i ci t ed unt i l aft ert he tr ans act i on occurr ed. ( B i ggs J . A . 2991–92. ) A s t he D i s t r i ctC our tt hor oughl yexpl ai ned the m ens r ea r equi r ed f o ra “ c o r ru p ti n t e n t , ” t h e C o u r td i d n o tc o m m i tp l a i n e r r o ri n i t s c h a r g e t o t h e j u r y. B i ggs chal l enges t he per s onal m oneyj udgm entof $960, 482 ent er ed aga i ns thi m on the f o ll o w ing g rou n d s: ( 1 ) l ac k o f n o ti ce in the Ind ict m en t; (2) the D istri ct C o u rt ’s fa il u re t o l i m i tt he per s onal m oneyj udgm entt o t he maxi m um amount of r es t i tut i on; and ( 3) t heB ig g s a lso c o n ten d s th a t th e D istric t C o u rt e rre d in f a ili n g to m a k e h im a n d h is 2 co- defe ndant s j oi nt l yand s ever al l yl i abl e. A s t he j udgm entexpr es s l ys t at es t o t he c o n tra ry , this a rg u m e n t is w ith o u t m e rit.



### - 9- D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s fai l ur e t o cons i derB i ggs ’ s abi l i t yt o pay . A s t hes e i s s ues pr es ent 2 q u e s tio n s o f

la w , w e e x e rc is e p le n a ry re v ie w . U ni t ed Stat es v. V

am pi r e N at i on , 451 F. 3d 189, 198 ( 3d C i r . 2006) ( ci t i ng U n itedS ta tes v . L e d e sm a -C u e sta , 347 F. 3d 527, 530 ( 3d C ir . 2 0 0 3 )). W i t h r es pectt o not i ce, t he I ndi ctm entcont ai ned for fei tur e al l egat i ons , w hi ch e x p lain e d th a t o n c e c o n v icte d , B ig g s w o u ld b e re q u ire d to f o rf e it an yp ro p e rty cons t i tut i ng order i ved fr om pr ocee ds t r ace abl e t o t he off ens e oran equi val ents um of m oney . T he I ndi ctm entfur t herdi s cl os ed thatt he governm entw oul d s eek f or fei tur e of s ubs t i tut e as s et s t o r ecove rt he i l l i ci tpr ocee ds . U nderFeder al R ul es of C r i m i nal P ro c e d u re 7 (c )(2 ) a n d 3 2 .2 (a ), th is w a s s u f f icie n t n o tice th a t B ig g s c o u ld b e su b jec t to f o rf e itu re a n d a p e rso n a l m o n e yju d g m e n t. B i ggs as s er t s w i t houtauthor i t yt hatt he amountof the per s onal m oneyj udgm ent ent er ed aga i ns thi m s houl d nothave e xcee ded the maxi m um amount of r es t i tut i on B i ggs coul d have be en or der ed t o paybas ed upon hi s countof convi ct i on, i . e. , t he $162, 250 paym enti s s ued undera coa s t al zone managementcontr act . I n eff ect , B i ggs cont ends t hat th e D istric t C o u rt e rre d in in c lu d in g w ith in th e c a lcu latio n th e ill icit p ro c e e d s re late d to t he count s on w hi ch he w as acqui t t ed. B i ggs err oneous l yconfl at es for fei tur e and re stitu tio n , w h ich “ a re d istin c t re m e d ies . R e stitu tio n is re m e d ial in n a tu re , an d its g o a l is

### - 10-

t o r es t or e the vi ct i m ’ s l os s . For fei tur e, i n contr as t , i s puni t i ve; i ts eeks t o di s gor ge any pr ofi t s t hatt he off

enderr eal i zed f

r om hi s i l l egal act i vi t y . G i ven thei rdi s t i nctnatur e and goal s , r es t i tut i on i s cal cul at ed bas ed on the vi ct i m ’ s l os s , w hi l e for fei tur e i s bas ed on the offe nder ’ s gai n. ” U

ni t ed Stat es v. W

ebber , 536 F. 3d 584, 602–03 ( 7t h C i r . 2008) ( i nt ernal ci t at i ons om i t t ed) . M or eover , “[e ] ven count s on w hi ch the j ur yacqui t s m aybe cons i der ed i n s ent enci ng, i f the j udge fi nds bya pr eponder ance of the evi dence t hatt he cr i m i nal act i vi t i es occurr ed. ” U ni t ed Stat es v. G enova , 333 F. 3d 750, 762 ( 7t h C i r . 2003) ( ci t at i on om i t t ed) . “So l ong as t he s ent enci ng cour tfi nds bya pr eponder ance of the evi dence t hatt he cr i m i nal conductt hr ough w hi ch the pr ocee ds w er e made w as for es eea bl e t o t he def

endant , t he pr ocee ds s houl d for m par tof the for fei tur e j udgm ent . ” U ni t ed Stat es v. Fr ucht er , 411 F. 3d 377, 384 ( 2d C i r . 2005) ( ci t at i on om i t t ed) . T he D i s t r i ctC our tfound bya pr eponder ance of the evi dence t hatt he br i beryand ki ckbac k s cheme i n w hi ch B i ggs par t i ci pat ed nett ed $960, 482. A ccor di ngl y , t he D i s t r i ctC our tw as perm i t t ed t o i s s ue a pe r s onal m oneyj udgm enti n t hatamount forw hi ch B i ggs and hi s codefe ndant s w er e j oi nt l yand s ever al l yl i abl e. B i ggs ’ s fi nal chal l enge t o t he per s onal m oneyj udgm enti s di r ect l ycontr adi ct ed by ourpr ece dent . I n V

am pi r e N at i on , w e h e ld th a t “ i n pers onam fo rfe itu re jud g m en ts are appr opr i at e under21 U . S. C . § 853, even w her e the amountof the j udgm entexce eds t he d e f e n d a n t’s a v a ilab le a ss e ts a t th e tim e o f c o n v ictio n .” 4 5 1 F .3 d a t 2 0 3 . T h u s, th is ar gum enti s unavai l i ng.B igg s fu rth er c o n tend s tha t th e D istri ct C o u rtd ep arted u p w ard fro m the a d v isory 3 G u idelines ran g e w ith o u t pri o r no ti ce . C o n tr aryto this asse rt ion , the D istri ct C o u rt cal cul at ed a hi ghert ot al offe ns e l evel t han thati n t he Pr es ent ence R epor t( “PSR ”)

— 31 in ste a d o f

2 8

— a n d v a rie d d o w n w a rd f ro m th e a d v iso ryra n g e o f 1 0 8 to 1 3 5 m o n th s to s ent ence B i ggs t o 84 m ont hs ’ i ncar cer at i on. A ccor di ngl y , t hi s cont ent i on i s w i t hout m e rit.



### - 11- B i ggs chal l enges t he fol l ow i ng as pect s of the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s G ui del i nes cal cul at i ons : ( 1) t he s i xt een- l evel i ncr eas e bas ed on the netval ue of the bene fi tr ece i ved fr om t he s cheme, pur s uantt o U . S. S. G . §§ 2C 1. 1( b) ( 2) and 2B 1. 1( b) ( 1) ( I ) ; and ( 2) t he th re e -le v e l in c re a se b a se d o n B ig g s’s m a n a g e ria l o r su p e rv iso ryro le, p u rsu a n t to U . S. S. G . § 3B 1. 1( b) . W e r evi ew t he s ent ence i m pos ed bya di s t r i ctcour tforabus e of 3 d is c re tio n . U

ni t ed Stat es v. Tom ko , 5 6 2 F . 3 d 5 5 8 , 5 6 7 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 9 ) ( en banc ). “[ F ]a c ts t hatar e cons i der ed ats ent enci ng, as a gene r al m at t er , m us tbe pr oved bya pr eponder ance of the evi dence . ” U

nited S tates v. B erry , 553 F. 3d 273, 280 ( 3d C i r . 2009) ( ci t at i on om i t t ed) . T he tw o chal l enged i ncr eas es i n t he off ens e l evel w er e bas ed upon fa ct s found byt he D i s t r i ctC our tbya pr eponder ance of the evi dence . T hes e fa ctual fi ndi ngs w er e not cl ear l yerr oneous , and the i ncr eas es di d notcons t i tut e an a bus e of di s cr et i on. 

### III. F o r th e f o reg o in g reaso n s, w e af

f irm th e j u d g m ent o f

th e D istrict C o urt.