2010 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 3-11-2010 

# U SA v . Thom a s S treet 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 . 08-4091

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_2010

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 2010 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 . Thom as S tr e e t " (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1743. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010/1743NOT 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- 4091 UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. T . M IL T O N , S T R E E T , S R .,

A ppel l ant 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 E a ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D . C . C r i m i nal A ct i on N o. 2- 06- cr - 00659- 001) D istric t Ju d g e : H o n o ra b le L e g ro m e D . D a v is Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

M ar ch 11, 2010 B efor e: A M B R O , SM I T H and A L D I SE R T , C i r cui tJ udges

( Fi l ed: M ar ch 11, 2010) OP I NI ON A M B R O , C i r cui tJ udge T h o m a s M ilt o n S tre e t ap p e a ls h is c o n v ictio n f o r th re e c o u n ts o f

w ill f u llyf a ili n g to f i l e f e d e r a l i n c o me t a x r e tu r n s f o rt a x y e a r s 2 0 0 2 th r o u g h 2 0 0 4 , i n v i o l a t i o n o f 2 6 U. S . C.T he D i s t r i ctC our thad j ur i s di ct i on under18 U . S. C . § 3231. W e have j ur i s di ct i on 1 under28 U . S. C . § 1291. St r eetdi d notappea l hi s s ent ence . 2 § 7 2 0 3 . F o r th e f

o llo w in g re a so n s, w e a f f irm th e D istric t C o u rt’s ju d g m e n t. 1 I. I n N ovember2006, St r eetw as i ndi ct ed on var i ous count s of m ai l fr aud, w i r e fr aud, h o n e s ts e r v i c e s f

r a u d , a s s i s t i n g i n f

i l i n g f a l s e t a x r e tu r n s , a n d f

a i l i n g t o f

i l e f e d e r a l i n c o me t ax r etur ns . I n February2008, aft era tw o- w eek tr i al , a j uryconvi ct ed Str eetonl yfor fai l i ng t o fi l e t ax r etur ns . H e fi l ed a mot i on fora s t ayof s ent ence pendi ng appea l and a m ot i on fora new t r i al . T he D i s t r i ctC our tdeni ed the mot i ons , and s ent ence d St r eett o 30 m o n th s’ im p riso n m e n t. II. B eca us e St r eeti s pr ocee di ng pro se , w e cons t rue hi s br i efs l i ber al l y . H e makes fou r ar gu m ents on app eal : (1) t he ev i den ce present ed at tri al w as i nsuff i ci ent t o est abli sh he w i l l ful l yfai l ed t o fi l e t ax r etur ns ; ( 2) the i ndi ctm entw as cons t ruct i vel yamended at t r i al byt he evi dence , ar gum ent s , and j uryi ns t ruct i ons ; ( 3) the D i s t r i ctC our tpr ecl uded hi m fr om pr es ent i ng a meani ngful defe ns e; and ( 4) he r ece i ved i neff ect i ve as s i s t ance of c o u n se l. A . Suff

i ci ency of t he E vi dence St r eetfi r s tchal l enges t he s uffi ci encyof the evi dence t o convi cthi m forw i l l ful fai l ur e t o fi l e t ax r etur ns i n 2002 t hr ough 2004. T o s us t ai n t he convi ct i on, the evi dence m us tbe s uffi ci entt o pr ove ea ch of the fol l ow i ng el ement s bey ond a r eas onabl e doubt : ( 1)3

he w as r equi r ed t o fi l e the t ax r etur ns ; ( 2) he fa i l ed t o fi l e them; and ( 3) hi s fai l ur e w as w illf u l. U ni t ed Stat es v. McKee , 506 F. 3d 225, 244 ( 3d C i r . 2007) . “W i l l ful nes s r equi r es th e v o lu n tar y , inte n tio n a l v io latio n o f a k n o w n leg a l d u tya s a c o n d iti o n p re c e d e n t to cr i m i nal l i abi l i t y . ” I

d. at236 ( ci t i ng C heek

v. U ni t ed Stat es , 4 9 8 U .S . 1 9 2 (1 9 9 1 )) . “‘W e a p p lya p arti cu larl yd ef ere n ti al st an d ard o f re v iew w h en d ec iding w h ethe r a j ur yver di ctr es t s on l egal l ys uffi ci entevi dence . ’ ” U n itedS ta tes v . So to , 539 F. 3d 191, 1 9 3

– 9 4 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 8 ) ( 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 ir . 1 9 9 8 )) . W e w i l l s us t ai n t he ver di cti f, vi ew i ng the evi dence i n t he l i ghtm os tfavor abl e t o t he G overnm ent , “‘ anyr 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 . ’ ” I d. at194 ( quot i ng D ent , 1 4 9 F . 3 d at 18 7 ). A t tri al, an IR S an aly st t esti fied that S tr ee t fi led f ed era l i n co m e tax return s (F o rm 1040) fort he y ear s 1992–2001, butt hatthe I R S di d notr ece i ve anyt ax r eturns fr om S t r e e tf o rt h e y e a r s 2 0 0 2

– 2 0 0 4 . An I RS r e v e n u e a g e n tt e s t i f i e d a b o u tth e f

e d e r a l i n c o me tax re turn fil ing req u ir em en ts, an d the G o v ern m en t prese n ted e v iden ce that S tr ee t’ s i nco m e exce eded t he b ase am ou nt tri gg eri ng tho se r equ i rem ents . T he G overnm ental s o pr es ent ed the t es t i m onyof St r eet ’ s form eracc ount ant , Fr ed J o h n s o n . In th e 1 9 9 0 s , S tr e e t e n lis te d J o h n s o n ’s f ir m to b ri n g h is ta x e s u p to d a te . J ohns on t es t i fi ed thathe pr epar ed St r eet ’ s t ax r eturns , i ns t al l m entagr eement s , and ext ens i on r eques t s , and thathe s poke t o St r eetabouthi s obl i gat i on t o fi l e a t ax r eturn and t o m ake pa ym ent s undert he i ns t al l m entagr eementi n pl ace w i t h t he I R S. J ohns on fur ther t es t i fi ed thathe di d notpr epar e a t ax r eturn forSt r eeti n 2002–2004, al t hough he2 8 U .S .C . § 7 2 0 3 p ro v id e s, in re lev a n t p a rt, “A n yp e rso n re q u ire d u n d e r th is titl e 2 t o payanyes t i m at ed t ax ort ax, orr equi r ed bythi s t i t l e orbyr egul at i ons m ade unde r author i t yt her eof t o m ake a r etur n, keep a nyr ecor ds , ors uppl yanyi nform at i on, w ho w i l l ful l yfai l s t o pays uch es t i m at ed t ax ort ax, m ake s uch r eturn, keep s uch r ecor ds , or su p p lysu c h in f

o rm a tio n , at th e tim e o r tim e s re q u ire d b ylaw o r re g u latio n s, sh a ll, in a d d itio n to o th e r p e n a ltie s p ro v id e d b yla w , b e g u ilty o f a m is d e m e a n o r . . . .” 4 at t em pted t o g at her Str eet ’s personal i nco m e and exp ense i nfo rm at i on for tho se y ears . S tre e t m a k e s tw o a rg u m e n ts th a t th is e v id e n c e w a s in su f f icie n t to e sta b lish h is g u ilt . F irst, h e a rg u e s th a t w h ile th e re is n o d isp u te h e f a iled to f ile h is ta x re tu rn s in tho se y ea rs, there w as n o ev iden ce h e f ail ed to “m ak e” the re turn s. P resu m ab ly , S tr ee t’ s th e o ryis th a t h e d id n o t v io late 2 6 U .S .C . § 7 2 0 3 b e c a u se h is a c c o u n tan t “m a d e ” h is r etur ns ( a s t r ange a r gum entgi ven the ac count ant ’ s tr i al t es t i m onythathe di d noti n fac t pr epar e the r etur ns ) , even though St r eetadmi t s he di d not“fi l e” them. T hi s ar gum ent a ss u m e s th a t § 7 2 0 3 ’s d ire c tiv e to “ m a k e ” a tax re tu rn is d if f e re n t th a n a re q u ire m e n t to “fi l e” thatr etur n. I ti s not . A s t he C our tof A ppeal s forthe Seventh C i r cui thas 2 expl ai ned, “[m]a ki ng a t ax r etur n i s a t erm of artforthe combi nat i on of compl et i ng and fi l i ng; anyacc ount antorl aw y erw oul d have t ol d [the def endant ] s o, had he a s ked. ” U ni t ed Stat es v. D unkel , 9 0 0 F .2 d 1 0 5 , 1 0 8 (7 th C ir . 1 9 9 0 ), vacated on othergr ounds , 498 U . S. 1043 ( 1991) . St r eet ’ s cr eat i ve r e- i nt erpr et at i on of the s t atut e’ s us e of “ t o m ake” as “t o fi l l out ” or“t o compl et e” i s w i t houtbas i s . ( N or , w e not e, w as thi s theorypr es ent ed to the jury . ) Second, St r eetar gues t hatt he G overnm entfai l ed t o pr ove w i l l ful nes s beca us e he had a “ good fai t h bel i ef” t hathe w as notr equi r ed t o fi l e t ax r eturns . Speci fi cal l y , St r eet5

t es t i fi ed he be l i eved thathe w as notr equi r ed t o fi l l outI R S Form 1040A beca us e the fo rm d id n o t sat isfythe P ap erw o rk R ed u cti o n A ct (“P R A ”). H o w ev er, th e juryh ea rd e v id e n c e th a t S tr e e t h a d f ile d h is f e d e ra l in c o m e ta x re tu rn s f o r ye a rs b e f

o re s to p p in g . H i s acc ount anti nform ed St r eetof hi s dutyt o fi l e t ax r eturns , and Str eeti n fac tr et ai ned t h a ta c c o u n t a n tb e c a u s e h e ( S t r e e t ) wa s b e h i n d o n h i s t a x r e tu r n s a n d wa n t e d t o b e c o me c u rre n t. T h e ju ryw a s f re e to re jec t S tre e t’s te stim o n yth a t h e w a s a c tin g w ith a g o o d f a ith beli ef he w as not r equ i red t o fil e t ax returns. B. C ons t r uc t i ve A m e ndm e nt St r eetal l eges t he i ndi ctm entw as cons t ruct i vel yamended beca us e, w hi l e i tchar ged hi m w i t h fai l i ng t o “make” an i ncome t ax r eturn, the G overnm ent ’ s theoryof pr os ecut i on, re f lec ted in th e e v id e n c e p re se n ted a t trial a n d th e ju ryin stru c tio n s, w a s th a t h e f a iled to “fi l e” a t ax return fo r the rel evan ty ears . “A n i ndi ctm enti s cons t ruct i vel yamended w hen evi dence , ar gum ent s , orthe di s t r i ctcour t ’ s j ur yi ns t ruct i ons eff ect i vel y‘ amend[s] the i ndi ctm entbybr oadeni ng the pos s i bl e bas es forconvi ct i on fr om thatw hi ch appe ar ed i n [i t ] . ’ ” McKee , 506 F. 3d at229 ( quot i ng U

ni t ed Stat es v. Lee , 3 5 9 F .3 d 1 9 4 , 2 0 8 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 4 )) (a lte ra tio n in o ri g in a l) . H o w ev er, as d iscu ssed ab o v e, th ere is no d iffe ren ce b etw ee n “m ak ing ” a tax re turn and “f i l i ng” a t ax r etur n. Fai l i ng t o “fi l e” a t ax r eturn i s thus the s ame as — notbr oader than

— fa il ing to “m ak e” a tax return . T h ere w as n o erro r.To t h e e x t e n tS t r e e t ’ s c o mp l a i n ti s g r o u n d e d i n d u e p r o c e s s , we r e a c h th e s a me 3 c o n c lu s io n . S e e G o v ’t o f V irg in Isla n d

s v . Mill s , 956 F. 2d 443, 446 n. 4 ( 3d C i r . 1992) ( not i ng t hatt her e i s “appa r ent l yl i t t l e, i f any ” di ffe r ence betw een the ana l y s i s underthe D u e P ro c e s s c la u s e a n d th e C o m p u ls o ry P ro c e s s c la u s e ). 6 C . C on st i tuti on al R i gh t t o P resent a M ean i n gful D efense D ur i ng t r i al , St r eets ubpoenae d t w o hi gh- l evel governm entoffi ci al s t o t es t i fy aboutw hetherI R A For m 1040 compl i ed w i t h t he PR A . T he D i s t r i ctC our tquas hed the s u b p o e n a s , ru lin g th a t th e p ro p o s e d te s tim o n yh a d n o re le v a n c e to th e c ri m in a l c h a rg e s . A ccor di ng t o St r eet , t hi s eff ect i vel ydepr i ved hi m of hi s cons t i tut i onal r i ghtt o pr es ent evidence in supp ortof h i s defen se theo ry , i n v i olat i on of the C om pu l soryP rocess cl ause of the Si xt h A m endment . St r eetar gues thathe had a r i ghtt o pr es entt es t i m onyof O ffi ce 3 of M anage m entand B udget( “O M B ”) and I R S offi ci al s i n s uppor tof hi s defe ns e thathe h a d a g o o d f

a i t h b e l i e f

h e wa s n o tr e q u i r e d t o f i l e t a x r e tu r n s b a s e d o n th e P RA . T hi s ar gum entfai l s . St r eetm us tpr ove: “[f ] i r s t , thathe w as depr i ved of the o p p o rtu n ityto p re se n t ev id e n c e in h is f a v o r; se c o n d , tha t th e e x c lu d e d tes tim o n yw o u ld have be en mat er i al and fa vor abl e t o hi s defe ns e; and thi r d, thatthe depr i vat i on w as arbi t r aryordi s pr opor t i onat e t o anyl egi t i m at e evi dent i aryorpr ocedur al purpos e. ” Mill s , 956 F. 2d at446. St r eetw as al l ow ed t o pr es enthi s PR A theoryw hen he t es t i fi ed. T her e i s no i ndi cat i on how t he off

i ci al s ’ t es t i m onyw oul d have be en mat er i al t o hi s defe ns e. A s t he G overnm entnot es , “St r eethas neverexpl ai ned how the t es t i m onyof hi gh- l evel governm entw i t nes s es he neve rm etw oul d i m pacton hi s s ubj ect i ve bel i ef” thathe nee d7

n o t f ile ta x re tu rn s . G o v ’t B r. 3 1

– 3 2 . Indeed , defe nse cou nsel did not ar gu e t o the D i stri ctC ou rtattri al that these w i t nes s es w oul d pr ovi de t es t i m onyr el evantt o St r eet ’ s s ubj ect i ve good fa i t h bel i ef. T he d e f e n se a rg u e d in ste a d th a t th e ir tes tim o n yw o u ld b e re lev a n t b e c a u se a f a ilu re to c o m p ly w ith th e P R A is a d e f

e n s e to th e f

a ilu re to f

ill o u t ta x f

o rm s . G o v ’t S u p p ’l A p p . 1 3 0 3

– 0 8 . A s th e D is tr ic t C o u rt re c o g n iz e d , c o u rt s h a v e re p e a te d ly re je c te d th is f

ri v o lo u s d e f

e n s e . See, e. g. , U

ni t ed Stat es v. P atr i dge , 5 0 7 F .3 d 1 0 9 2 , 1 0 9 4

– 9 5 (7 th C ir. 2 0 0 7 ); U ni t ed S ta tes v . N

e ff , 954 F. 2d 698, 700 ( 11t h C i r . 1992) ( concl udi ng that“the PR A pr ovi des [th e d ef en d an t] n o ref

u g e f rom h is st atuto ri ly -i m p o sed d u tyto f il e inc o m e tax return s”); U ni t ed Stat es v. Hi cks , 9 4 7 F . 2 d 1 3 5 6 , 1 3 5 9

– 6 0 ( 9 t h Ci r . 2 0 0 1 ) ( h o l d i n g th a tth e P RA

“ c o n s t i tu t e s n o d e f

e n s e t o p r o s e c u t i o n u n d e r2 6 U. S . C. § 7 2 0 3 , ” a n d n o t i n g th a tth e “ P RA wa s n o tme a n tt o p r o v i d e c r i mi n a l s wi t h a n a l l - p u rp o s e e s c a p e h a t c h ” ) . Ev e n i f th e P RA we r e v i o l a t e d ( a l t h o u g h we c a n n o tf a t h o m h o w, a s F o r m 1 0 4 0 i n f a c th a s a v a l i d OM B contr ol num ber ) , t he obl i gat i on t o fi l e fe der al i ncome t ax r eturns s t ems fr om a fe der al s t atut e, w hi l e the PR A appl i es t o agenc yr egul at i ons , and thus the PR A has no eff ecton t he I R S’ s abi l i t yt o enfor ce the s t atut oryobl i gat i ons r equi r i ng t axpay er s t o fi l e fe der al in c o m e ta x re tu rn s . D . I nef

f ect i ve A s s i s t ance of

C ounsel St r eet ’ s fi nal i s s ue on appe al i s an i neff ect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el cl ai m , bas ed pr i m ar i l yon t he i s s ues r el at ed t o t hos e w e r ej ectabove a nd as w el l as the SpeedyT r i al A ct . “Thi s C our tgener al l ydoes notr evi ew Si xth A m endmenti neff ect i ve as s i s t ance of8

couns el cl ai m s on di r ectappea l , ” U ni t ed Stat es v. O l

f ano , 5 0 3 F . 3 d 2 4 0 , 2 4 6 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 7 ), a n d w e w ill n o t d o s o h e re . * * * * * Fort hes e r eas ons , w e af fi r m St r eet ’ s convi ct i on.