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

For the Eig hth Circu it

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

No. 1 3- 29 00

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

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.

Pau l Kra m er

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 So ut he rn Dis tri ct of I owa - Des M oi ne s

__ __ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: May 16, 2 01 4
Fil ed : Oct ob er 2 , 20 14

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re RI LEY, Chi ef J ud ge , BEAM an d S HEPHERD, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

__ __ __ __ __ __

BEAM, Ci rcu it Ju dg e.

Pau l Kram er ap pe al s hi s co nv ic ti on on se ve ral co un ts of co ns pi racy to co m m it

ba nk frau d, ba nk frau d, an d wire frau d, al l rel at in g to Kram er's a c t i v i t y in hi s

m or tg ag e le nd in g a nd rel at ed bu si ne ss es . W e aff irm th e d is tri ct co ur t. 1

The Hon or ab le James E. Grit zn er, Ch ie f Ju dg e, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Co ur t 1

fo r th e So ut he rn Dis tri ct of I owa

.I. BACKGRO UND

Th ree bu si ne ss es fo rm ed

, own ed

, an d op erat ed by Kram er are es pe ci a l l y
rel ev an t to th is ba nk fr a u d c a s e: Kram er Mo rtg ag e Co m pa ny, Io wa Cl os in g an d

Escr ow, an d LDF Dev el op m en t. In 19 99

, Kram er st art ed Kram er Mo r t g a g e

Co m pa ny, a co m

pa ny pr in ci pa ll y in vo lv e d in of feri ng in te rm ed ia ry se rv ic es to

bo rro wers se ek in g ho m e lo an s fro m ba nk s. The se se rv ic es in cl ud ed fin di ng le nd ers , fil in g ap pl ic at io ns , an d pr ov id in g su pp or ti ng do cu m en ta ti on to th e le nd ers

. Eve nt ua ll y , Kram er Mo rtg ag e be ga n pr ov id in g co ns tru ct io n lo an s to bo rro wers an d
by 20 06 was pr ov id in g it s cu st om ers co ns tru ct io n f i n an ci ng

. In 20 04

, Kram er an d

se ve ral ot he r in di vi du al s al so fo rm ed a rea l es ta te clo si ng co m pa ny k no wn as Io wa
Cl os in g an d Escr ow. By 20 08

, Kram e r be ga n m an ag in g th e da y -to -d ay op erat io ns

of Io wa Cl os in g an d Escr ow, an d Kram er Mo rtg ag e us ed Io wa Cl os in g and Escr ow

to cl os e m an y lo an s fin an ced by Kram er Mo rtg ag e. In 20 06

, Kram er, Lan e And ers on , Sh an n o n F l i ck in ge r, an d Dav e Mab le fo rm ed LDF De ve lo pm en t. LDF e ng ag ed in

th e bu si ne ss of fli pp in g ho us es –i .e., bu y in g ho m es , ren ov at in g th em , an d se ll in g th e
ho m es fo r a pr of

it

. LDF ob ta in ed fin an ci ng fro m Kram er Mo rtg ag e. LDF al so us ed

Io wa Cl os in g a nd Escr ow t o c lo se it s h om e sa le s.

To pr ov id e th is fin an ci ng , in Ju ly 20 06

, Kram er Mo rtg ag e en te red in to a cred it

ag reem en t with U.S. Ban k where by U. S. Ban k a gr eed to pro vi de Kram er Mo rtg ag e

a rev ol vi ng li ne of cred it up to $4 m il li on

. W he n Kram er Mo rtg ag e lo an ed m on ey to

a ho m eb uyer, i t dr ew up on it s li ne of cred it fro m U.S. B an k to m ak e th e l o a n

. Th e
ho m eb uyer th en ga ve Kram er Mo rtg ag e a m or tg ag e in te res t in th e ho m e, an d Kram er

Mo rtg ag e as si gn ed th at in te res t to U.S. Ban k as co ll at eral on th e li ne of cred it

. Und er

th e cre di t ag reem en t, wh en a ho m eo wne r pa id off hi s or h er co ns tru ct io n l oa n fr om

Kram er Mo rtg ag e, Kram er Mo rtg ag e was to fo rward th e pa y m en t to U.S. Ban k to pa y
of f t h e l i n e of cred it

. Onc e pa id in fu ll

, Kram er Mo rtg ag e an d U.S. Ban k wou ld

rel eas e th ei r mo r t g ag e in te res ts

, gi vi ng th e ho m eo wne r un en cu m be red ti tl e. If

Kram er Mo rtg ag e was pa id an d rel e as ed it s m or tg ag e wit ho ut fo rward in g pa y m en t

-2

-to U.S. Ban k, U.S. Ban k was le ft un se cu red on th e li ne of cred it to Kram er Mo rtg ag e.

The cred it ag reem en t was cu st om iz ed to U.S. Ban k's rel at i on sh ip wit h Kram er

Mo rtg ag e, ho wev er i n s om e way s i t re se m bl ed a wareh ou se li ne of c red it

. 2

Dur in g th e in fan cy of th e cred it ag reem en t, Kram er Mo rtg ag e ne go ti at ed te rm s

of th e ag reem en t wit h U.S. Ban k rep res en ta ti ve Ro be rt Bak ke r. Each ad va nc e on th e

li ne of cred it was ti ed to a sp eci fic pr o p e rty th at Kram er Mo rtg ag e was fin an ci ng

. Kram er Mo rtg ag e so on ex ha us te d it s li ne of cred it

, an d U.S. Ban k in crea se d th e li m it

to $4 .25 m il li on

. On Apr il 4, 20 07

, Kram er inf or m ed Bak ke r th at two ho m eo wne rs

ha d no t y et pa id of

f two sp eci fic lo an s, bu t wou ld so on

. In real it y , th e ho m eo wne rs

ha d al read y pa id th e i r l o a n s b ut Kram er wait ed ne arl y two m on th s to fo rward

pa y m en t. Kram er Mo rtg ag e co ll ect e d pa y m en ts on se ve ral pr op ert ie s pl ed ge d as

co ll at eral th at it ei th er de la y ed fo rward in g o r di d no t fo rward at al l. Kram er

Mo rtg ag e al so do ub le -p le dg ed co ll at eral to ob ta in ad di ti on al fin an ci ng on pr op ert ie s

fro m ot he r ba nk s. Non e of th e ot he r ba nk s in vo lv ed kn ew of U.S. Ban k's in te res t an d

vi ce v ers a.

By 20 08

, U.S. Ban k h a d g ro win g co nc ern be cau se se ve ral pr op ert ie s th at

Kram er Mo rtg ag e ha d pl ed ge d to U.S. Ban k were no t pa id of f bu t were ap pr oa ch in g

th e pa y of f de ad li ne

. Giv en th e gr owi ng ris k as so ci at ed wit h Kram er Mo rtg ag e, U.S.

Ban k's Sp eci al Ass et s Gro up to ok ov er th e acco un t. U

. S. Ban k req ue st ed Kram er

Mo rtg ag e to pr ov id e a l i s t of al l pr op ert ie s it ha d fin an ced

, an d, su bs eq ue nt ly,

co n du ct ed a ti tl e rev ie w of th es e pr op ert ie s. The rev ie w rev eal ed th at Kram er

Mo rtg ag e ha d do ub le -p le dg ed pr op ert ie s, rel eas ed so m e pr op e r t i es wit ho ut

fo rward in g pa ym e nt

, an d lo st so m e pr op ert ie s in de li nq ue nt ta x sa le s. W he n

U.S. Ban k rep res en ta ti ve Ro be rt Bak ke r te st ifi ed at tri al th at a wareh ou se li ne 2

of cred it m ean t a rev ol vi ng li ne of cred it th at yo u can bo rro w on an d pa y of f ov er ti m e, wit h i nt eres t o nl y

pa y m en ts , and pri nc ip al du e at m at ur it y

.

-3

-co nf

ro nt ed

, Kram er ad m it te d he ha d no t fo rward ed pa y of fs on m ul ti pl e pr op ert ie s.

U.S. Ban k p ut a ho ld on Kram er Mo rtg ag e's acco un t an d i ss ue d a de fau lt no ti ce.

Eve n aft er U.S. Ban k se nt no ti ce, Kram er Mo rtg ag e co nt in ue d to ke ep pa y of f

pa y m en ts on m

ul ti pl e pr op ert ie s, an d ne gl ect e d t o in fo rm U.S. Ban k ab ou t th ei r

rece ip t. Kram er us ed th e m on ey fo r pe rs on al ex pe ns es an d to rep le ni sh tru st acco un ts

at Io wa Cl os in g an d Escr ow th at he ha d pr ev io us ly rai de d fo r pe rs on al ex pe ns es

. The

m on ey he ha d pr ev io us ly ta ke n fro m th e tru st acco un ts co ns ti tu te d sa le pr oc eed s
de po si te d at cl os in gs an d sh ou ld ha ve be en us ed to pa y of f s el le rs ' rem ai ni ng

m or tg ag es whe n th ey so ld th ei r ho m es

. As a res ul t, se ll ers rece iv ed la te pa y m en t an d

de fau lt no ti ces on m or tg ag es th at sh ou ld ha ve be en sat is fie d.

LDF als o beg an ha vi ng fin an ci al di ffi cu lt ie s d ur in g t hi s t im e p eri od . By lat e

20 06

, LDF was ha vi ng di f f i c u l t y s e l li ng ho m es

. As a res ul t, LDF was un ab le to

m ai nt ai n it s l o a n ob li ga ti on s to Kram er Mo rtg ag e. To ob ta in ad di ti on al fin an ci ng , LD F s o l d pr op ert ie s to Fl ic ki ng er– an LDF own er– who ob ta in ed lo an s to bu y th e

pr op ert ie s. Alt ho ug h Fl ic ki ng er ap pl ie d fo r lo an s as if he were an act ua l ho m eb uyer,
he ha d no in te nt io n of li vi ng in an y of th e ho m es

. The on ly pu rp os e be hi nd th e sa le s

were so LDF co ul d ob ta in ad di ti on al cap it al to se rv ic e i t s lo an s fro m Kram er

Mo rtg ag e. Fl ic ki ng er's lo an ap pl ic at io ns co nt ai ne d nu m ero u s m is st at em en ts

. And ers on pr ep ared th e ap pl ic at io ns

. Kram er cl os ed th e lo an s at Io wa Cl os in g an d

Escr ow kn owi ng th at th e ap p l ic at io ns an d lo an do cu m en ts co nt ai ne d

m is rep res en ta ti on s an d d ire ct ed an em pl oyee to no ta riz e fal se do cu m en ts

.

Eve nt ua ll y , U.S

. Ban k su ed Kram er Mo rtg ag e to co ll ect on th e ou ts ta nd in g
cred it li ne an d ob ta in ed a jud gm en t ag ai ns t it fo r $3 ,7 8 2

, 0 9 1

. 52

. Pri or to th e jud gm en t, U.S. Ban k so ld so m e of th e co ll at eral

, refl ect ed in th e jud gm en t, an d ag ai n

so ld so m e of th e co ll at eral aft er th e jud gm en t. Afte r th e po st -jud gm en t sa le s, Kram er

Mo rtg ag e's acco un t re su lt ed in m or e th an $2 m il li on in lo ss to U.S. Ban k.

-4

-On Sep te m be r 28

, 20 10

, th e FBI in te rv ie wed Kram er. Kram er con fir m ed th e

sp eci fic s of th e cred it ag reem en t an d ad m it te d he di d no t rem it pa y of fs to U.S. Ban k

an d rev eal ed ho w he was op erat in g hi s m or tg ag e bu si ne ss , bu t cl ai m ed he d i d n o t

in te nd to de frau d an y on e. Kram er an d hi s LDF as so ci at es And ers on , Fl ic ki ng er, an d

Mab le were ch arg ed wit h on e co un t of co ns pi racy to co m m it wire frau d, an d Kram er,
And ers on an d Mab le were ch arg ed wit h on e co un t of co ns pi racy to c o mm i t ba nk

frau d. Kram er al on e was ch arg ed wit h twel ve co un ts of ba nk frau d (th ou gh th ree of

th es e co un ts were di sm is se d du rin g tri al ) an d se ve n co un ts of wire frau d. And ers on

an d Kram er pr oc eed ed to tri al

, whi le th e ot he r two de fen da nt s acce pt ed a pl ea

a g r eem en t. Befo re tri al

, Kram er un su cces sf ul ly m ov ed to se ve r hi s tri al fro m
And ers on 's. At tri al

, th e di st ric t co ur t refu se d to al lo w Kram er to in tro du ce ev id en ce

reg ard in g th e ci vi l la wsu it U.S. Ban k co m m en ced ag ai ns t Kram er. The jury

co nv ic te d b ot h Kram er an d And ers on on al l ch arg ed co un ts

. Afte r tri al

, Kram er

un su cces sf

ul l y m ov ed fo r acq ui tt al an d a ne w tri al ba se d on , am on g ot he r th in gs , al le ge dl y in fla m

m at or y rem ark s th e go ve rn m en t m ad e du rin g cl os in g arg um en ts

. Kram er ap pe al s, al le gi ng as erro r th e di st ric t co ur t' s de ci si on s reg ard in g th e

se ve ran ce, th e ex cl us io n of cert ai n ev id en ce, an d th e cl os in g arg um en t. Kram er al so

c h a ll en ge s th e di st ric t co ur t's lo ss cal cu la ti on an d res ti tu ti on am ou nt o f

$2 ,60 1,8 85 .91

.

II

. DISCUSS IO N

A. Sev era nce

Kram er arg ue s th at th e di st ric t co ur t ab us ed it s di sc ret io n by fai li ng to se ve r hi s

tri al fro m co -d efen da nt And ers on 's tri al

. W e wil l rev ers e a de ni al of a m ot io n to se ve r

on ly if th e ap pe ll an t de m on st rat es an ab us e of di sc ret io n res ul ti ng in cl ear pr ejud ic e.
Uni te d St at es v. Cas te el

, 66 3 F.3 d 10 13

, 10 18 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 ). Kram er co m pl ai ns th at

he was pr ejud ic ed b e c a u s e he was "d ou bl e-t eam ed " by An de rs on 's co un se l an d th e

go ve rn m en t pu tt in g bl am e on Kram er. K r a mer pr es en ts a li st of ex am pl es whe re

-5

-And ers on 's co un se l at te m pt ed to em

ph as iz e Kram er's gu il t and al so ag reed wit h th e

go ve rn m en t's po si ti on on se ve ral of Kram er's ob jecti on s. Kram er al so cl ai m s he an d

And ers on ha d ad ve rs e le ga l po si ti on s, an d th ei r co un se l were an ta go ni st ic to ward

each ot he r.

Fed eral Ru le of Cri m in al Pro ced ur e 14 (a) ve st s th e di st ric t co ur t wit h au th or it y

to or de r se ve ran ce if co ns ol id at io n fo r tri al ap pe ars to pr ejud ic e th e go ve rn m en t or

a de fen da nt

. Nev ert he le ss , th ere is a st ro ng pr es um pt io n ag ai ns t se ve rin g tri al s.
Uni te d St at es v. Delp it

, 94 F.3 d 11 34

, 11 43 (8 th Ci r. 19 96 ). In Delp it

, we ad dr es se d

th e type o f si tu at io n Kra m er b el ie ve s i s p reju di ci al an d re jecte d t he no ti on , st at in g:

[C]o-d efen da nt s are of

t en ho st il e to on e an ot he r, an d on e wil l try freq ue nt ly to "p oi nt th e fin ge r," to sh ift th e bl am e, or to sa ve hi m se lf at th e ex pe ns e of th e ot he r. " A nt ag on is ti c" de fen se s req ui re se ve ran ce

on ly whe n th ere is a da ng er th at th e jury wil l un jus ti fia bl y in fer th at th is

co nf li ct al on e d emo ns tr at es th at

bo th ar e g ui lt

y

.

Id . (in te rn al qu ot at io n o m it te d) (se co nd alt erat io n i n o rig in al ).

Here, ov er the co ur se of a th irt een -d ay tri al

, th e in st an ces in whi ch And ers on

at te m pt ed to pa ss bl am e on to Kram er were rel at iv el y few. Mo reo ve r, no t h i n g is

pr ejud ic i a l ab ou t And ers on 's te st im on y th at te nd ed to im pl ic at e Kram er. Zafi ro v.
Uni te d S t a t e s , 50 6 U.S. 53 4, 54 0 (1 99 3) ("[ W ]e se e no reas on why rel ev an t an d

co m pe te nt te st im on y wou ld b e pr ejud ic ia l m erel y be cau se th e wit ne ss is al so a

co de fen da nt ."). And

, as th e go ve rn m en t po in ts ou t, m uc h of th e a n ta go ni sm th at

ex is te d b e t w e e n d e fen se co un se l aro se ou ts id e of th e pr es en ce of th e jury or ha d

no th i n g t o d o wit h th e m eri ts of th e cas e. Si m il arl y , th at And ers on 's co un se l

di sa gr eed wit h s om e o f Kram er's co un se l's ta ct ic s and ob jecti on s do es no t est ab li sh

pr ejud ic e ag ai ns t Kram er. The di st ric t co ur t di d no t ab us e i t s wid e di sc ret io n in

refu si ng to se ve r an d ev en if it di d, Kram er ha s no t sa ti sf ie d th e su bs ta nt ia l hu rd le to

sh ow cl ear p reju di ce.

-6

-B. Go od -Fai th Ev id ence

Kram er al le ge s th e di st ric t co ur t er r e d i n de nyin g hi s m ot io n fo r a ne w tri al

ba se d on th e co ur t's e x c l us io n of ev id en ce fro m th e ci vi l su it to su pp or t Kram er's

go od -fai th de fen se in th e cri m in al cas e. At tri al

, th e di st ric t co ur t ad m it te d th e ba si c

fact th at U.S. Ban k ha d su ed Kram er ov er th e de bt bu t refu se d to al lo w, un de r Fed eral

Ru le of Evi de nc e 40 3, ev id en ce of th e un de rlyin g fact s of th e ci vi l s u i t

. Kram er

so ug ht to in tro du ce evi de nc e th at th e ba nk su ed hi m on a rev ol vi ng no te acco un t as

op po se d to a wareh ou se li ne of cred it

, whi ch he as se rts wou ld ha ve sh own th at he was

no t ne ces sa ril y r e q u ir ed to tu rn ov er pa y m en t to th e ba nk each ti m e he rece iv ed a

pa y of f of a pa rti cu la r pr op ert y

. Kram er fu rth er wan te d to ad du ce ev id en ce th at th e

la wsu it di d no t in cl ud e al le ga ti on s of f r a ud

, an d th at he an d th e ba nk co nt in ue d to

ne go ti at e u nt il th e fi li ng of t he laws ui t an d d ur in g t he en su in g l it ig at io n.

W e rev ie w th e di st ric t co ur t's d eci si on to ex cl ud e ev id en ce fo r a cl ear an d

pr ejud ic ia l a b u s e o f di sc ret io n an d si m il arl y rev ie w th e de ni al of ne w tri al fo r an 3

ab us e of di sc ret io n. Bai r v. C a l l a h a n , 6 64 F.3 d 12 25

, 12 28

, 12 30 (8 th Ci r. 20 12 ).

Howev er, we wil l no t rev ers e an ev id en ti ary erro r if th e erro r was ha rm le ss

. Uni te d

St at es v. Sh or es , 70 0 F.3 d 36 6, 37 3 (8 th Ci r

. 20 12 ), cert

. de ni ed

, 13 3 S. Ct

. 27 80
(2 01 3)

.

Fi rs t, Kram er's co nt in ue d n eg ot ia ti on s wit h U.S. Ban k ha d li m it ed pr ob at iv e

va lu e as to hi s frau d in th e cri m in al cas e. Uni te d St at es v. Rad tk e, 41 5 F.3 d 82 6, 84 0-

41 (8 th Ci r. 20 05 ) ("[ S]elf-s erv in g e x cu lp at or y act s pe rfo rm ed su bs ta nt ia ll y aft er a
de fen da nt 's wro ng do in g i s di sc ov ered are of m in im al pr ob at iv e va lu e as to hi s st at e

of m in d at th e ti m e of th e al le ge d cri m e."). And

, th e di st ri c t c o u r t d et erm in ed th is

W e de cl in e Kram er's i nv it at io n to rev ie w th is is su e de no vo be cau se th e 3

di st ric t co ur t al le ge dl y de ni ed hi s co ns ti tu ti on al rig ht to pr es en t a co m pl et e de fen se

. Our rev ie w of th e reco rd in di cat es th a t K r a mer was al lo wed to an d di d co nd uc t a vi go ro us de fen se

.

-7

-ev id en ce m ig ht ha ve in jecte d su bs ta nt ia l co nf

us io n in to th e cri m in al cas e. See Uni te d

St at es v. Jo hn so n, 46 3 F.3 d 80 3, 80 9 (8 th Ci r. 20 06 ) (rec og ni zi ng th at "we gi ve gr eat

de fere nc e to th e d is tri ct co ur t's rul in g" un de r Ru le 40 3)

.

At fir st bl us h, th e pr ob at iv e va lu e of th e pr of fere d ev id en ce se em s ap pr eci ab le

. Howev er, th e go ve rn m en t co rrec tl y po in ts ou t th at U.S. Ban k was no t req ui red to

al le ge frau d in th e ci vi l su it to co ll ect a n u n p ai d de bt

. Fu rth er, no th in g pr ecl ud ed

Kram er fro m ad du ci ng te st im on y du rin g hi s cri m in al cas e th at rev eal ed th e na tu re of

Kram er's ag reem en t– or Kram er's un de rs ta nd in g of th e ag reem en t

– w i t h U.S. Ban k.

In fact

, Kram er cro ss -ex am in ed th e ba nk wit ne ss es at le ng th ab ou t th e na tu re of the

cred it ag reem en t, a nd th e ba nk wit ne ss es ad m it te d on cro ss -ex am in at io n th at th e

ag reem en t was no t a st ric tl y de fin ed wareh ou se li ne of cred it

. Kram er te st ifi ed ab ou t

hi s un de rs ta nd in g of th e ag reem en t, an d th e ju r y v ie wed th e co nt ract do cu m en ts

. Thro ug h c r o s s

- e x am in at io n an d hi s own te st im on y , Kram er was ab le to pr es en t

ev id en ce of hi s ne go ti at io ns wit h th e ba nk an d hi s effo rts to rep ay an d p r o vi de

ad eq ua te co ll at eral fo r th e lo an s. Acco rd in gl y , a la rg e po rti on of e v i d e n c e th at

Kram er so ug ht to ad m it –t he am bi gu ou s na tu r e of th e cred it ag reem en t, Kram er's

ne go ti at io ns an d effo rts to rep ay th e ba nk –wa s pres en te d to th e jury. Thu s, we fin d

th e di st ric t co ur t was wit hi n it s di sc ret i o n t o ex cl ud e th e po ss ib ly co nf us in g an d

cert ai nl y cu m

ul at iv e ev id en ce, se e Fed eral Ru le of Evi de n c e 40 3 (p erm it ti ng th e

ex cl us io n of rel ev an t ev id en ce whe n co nf us io n of th e is s u e s migh t res ul t or if th e

ev id en ce is cu m

ul at iv e), an d th at an y po ss ib le erro r in refu si ng to ad m it th e ev id en ce

was ha rm le ss

.

C. Clo si ng Argu m ents

Nex t, Kram er as se rts th at th e di st ric t co ur t erre d in refu si ng to gr an t a m is tri al

on th e b a s i s t h a t th e pr os ecu to r m ad e im pr op er rem ark s du rin g cl os in g arg um en ts

. Sp eci fic al ly, du rin g cl os in g arg um en ts

, th e go ve rn m en t de sc rib ed Kram er's bu si ne ss

sc he m e as "Ro bb in g Pet er to pa y P a u l " a nd pl aced th e st at em en t on a Po werPo in t

-8

-sl id e. Kram er arg ue s th at th e st at em en t in si nu at es vi ol en ce (ro bb ery) an d ha s ad de d

fo rce in th e pr es en t co nt ex t be cau se Kram er's fir st na m e is Pau l. "Th e di st ric t co ur t

en joy s br oa d di sc ret io n in co nt ro ll in g cl os in g arg um en ts

. We w i l l ov ert ur n a

co nv ic ti on on ly for a cl ear ab us e of th at di sc ret io n." Uni te d St at es v. Be am an , 36 1

F.3 d 1 06 1, 1 06 4 (8 th Cir . 20 04 ).

As th e di st ric t co ur t reco gn iz ed

, th e ph ras e "Ro bb in g Pet er to pa y Pau l" is a fig ur e of sp eech th at ha s no sp eci fic ti es to vi ol en ce in th is cas e. Mo reo ve r, aft er

Kram er's co un se l ob

jecte d to th e Po wer P o i n t

, th e go ve rn m en t ex pl ai ne d th e na tu re

of th e ph ras e, th at th is cas e in vo lv ed no vi ol en ce, an d th at it was m erel y ha pp en st an ce

th at Kram er's fir st na m e was al so Pau l. W he n vi ewed in co nt ex t, th e di st ric t co ur t di d

no t ab us e it s di sc ret io n in al lo win g th e go ve rn m en t to us e th e co m m on ph ras e, an d

Kram er can n o t e s t a b l i s h th at he was pr ejud ic ed by us e of th e wor ds

. See Uni te d

St at es v. Ju m

pi ng Eag le

, 51 5 F.3 d 79 4, 80 6 (8 th Ci r. 20 08 ) ("To ob ta in a rev ers al

, th e
de fen da nt m

us t sh ow th at (1 ) t h e p ro se cu to r's rem ark s were im pr op er, an d (2 ) th e

rem ark s p reju di ced th e d efen da nt 's ri gh ts in ob ta in in g a fai r tr ia l." ).

D. Res tit uti on

Kram er al so di sa gr ees wit h t h e d is tri ct co ur t's lo ss cal cu la ti on fo r th e

res ti tu ti on or de r. At th e res t i t u t i o n he ari ng , th e go ve rn m en t pr ov id ed th e di st ric t

co ur t a ch art of 30 pr op ert ie s whi ch U.S. Ban k so ld

. To arri ve at a to ta l lo ss am ou nt

, th e di st ric t c o u r t m erel y to ok th e am ou nt of de bt le ss th e pr oc eed s of th e pr op ert y

sa le s an d in su ran ce reco ve ry

. The di st ric t co ur t or de red res ti tu ti on of $2 ,60 1,8 85 .91

. Kram er cl ai m s th e di st ri c t c ou rt erre d in rel y in g on th e go ve rn m en t's ch art be cau se

24 of th e 30 pr op ert ie s are not id en ti fie d in th e in di ct m en t, an d th ere is no ev id en ce

li nk in g t he pr op ert ie s to Kram er's frau d. "We rev ie w th e di st ric t cou rt' s dec is io n to

award res ti tu ti o n f

o r a n ab us e of di sc ret io n an d th e di st ric t co ur t's fin di ng as to th e

am ou nt of lo ss fo r cl ear erro r." Uni te d St at es v. Fraz ie r, 65 1 F.3 d 89 9, 90 3 (8 th Ci r.

20 11 ).

-9

-In th e co nt ex t of real es ta te frau d, we ha ve he ld th at res ti tu ti on m a y be

cal cu la te d by "s ub tra ct in g th e pr ic e pa id at a sh eri ff's sa le or sh or t sa le of th e pr op ert y

. . . fro m

. . . t h e am ou nt th e vi ct im was en ti tl ed to co ll ect ." Uni te d St at es v. Eng el m an n, 72 0 F.3 d 10 0 5

, 1 0 1 5 ( 8 t h Ci r. 20 13 ). And

, al th ou gh we req ui re a

co nn ect io n be twee n th e fra u d an d res ti tu ti on , ou r cas es do no t req ui re th e type of

co nn ect io n Kram er de m an ds

. Fo r ex am pl e, in Uni te d St at es v. Sp en cer, a de fen da nt

in vo lv ed in a m or tg ag e frau d sch em e, li ke he re, argu ed th at th e go ve rn m en t di d no t

pr ov e th at sp eci fic pr op ert ie s us ed to cal cu la te lo ss were ti ed to frau d be cau se th ey

were no t al le ge d in th e in di ct m en t. 70 0 F.3 d 31 7, 32 4 ( 8 t h C i r

. 2 01 2)

. W e

hi gh l i g h t e d t h a t "[w]her e an of fen se ha s as an el em en t a sc he m e, co ns pi racy, or

pa tt ern of cri m in al act iv it y , res ti tu ti on m ay in cl ud e lo ss es th at are di rect ly cau se d by

th e de fen da nt 's co nd uc t as pa rt of th e sc he m e, co ns pi racy, or pa tt ern ." Id

. Thu s, we reject ed th e de fen da nt 's arg um en t, no ti ng th at the gove rn m en t pr esen te d ev id en ce th at

lo an s on th e p ro pe rti es "were sec ur ed as p art of th e sc he m e th at was ch arg ed in th e

in di ct m en t." Id.

Here, th e ev id en ce at tri al es ta bl is he d Kram er's o v e r al l frau du le nt sc he m e
ch arg ed in th e in di ct m en t. At th e res ti tu ti on he ari ng , th e go ve rn m en t pr es en te d

ev id en ce o f 30 pro pe rti es th at were p art of Kra m er Mo rtg ag e's po rtf ol io an d fo rced

in to fo recl os ur e sa le s– (th e go ve rn m en t di d no t ev en li st pr op ert ie s th at co ns ti tu te d a

to ta l l os s bec au se Kram er do ub le -p le dg ed th e p ro pe rty or i t h ad be co m e a n ui sa nc e

pr op ert y ). Lik e Sp en cer, al th ou gh th ere is no t ev id en ce tying each pr op ert y to a

sp eci fic act of frau d, by it s ve ry na tu re, Kram er's ov eral l frau du l e n t s c h e me

en cap su la te d e ach pro pe rty. Cf. Uni te d St at es v. DeRo si er, 5 01 F.3d 88 8, 8 97 (8t h

Ci r. 20 07 ) ("We ha ve co ns is te nt ly h el d th at res ti tu ti on m ay be or de red fo r cri m in al

co nd uc t th at is pa rt of a br oa d sc he m e to de frau d, ev en i f th e de fen da nt is no t

co nv ic te d fo r eac h fr au du le nt act in th e sc he m e."). Th eref or e, th e di st ric t co ur t di d

no t er r in it s re st it ut io n c al cu la ti on

.

-1 0-E. Cum ul at iv e Err or

Fi na ll y , Kram er arg ue s th a t a l t h ou gh each in di vi du al erro r m ay no t warra nt

rev ers al , wh en vi ewed to ge th er, al l co m bi ne d erro rs req ui re re ve rs al

. "Be cau se we

ha ve no t fo un d m

ul ti p l e e r r o r s, ha rm le ss or ot he rwis e, we m us t al so reject th is

co nt en ti on ." Uni te d St at es v. W il ke ns , 74 2 F.3 d 35 4, 36 4 (8 th Ci r.), cert

. de ni ed

, 13 4

S. Ct . 27 44 (20 14 ).

II I. CONCLUSI ON

W e aff irm th e d is tri ct co ur t i n a ll res pe ct s.

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

-1 1-