2005 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
6-30-2005 

# U SA v . M orn an P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 04-1319

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_2005

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 2005 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 . M orn an" (2005). 2005 D e cisio n s . P ape r 904. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005/904Th e Ho no ra ble A. Wal la c eTa sh ima , Senio r Unit e d St ate s Circuit * Judg e for the Ninth Circuit, sitt ing by designation. 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
. 04- 1319

____________ UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. CH RI S T OP HE R MORNA N,
A p p e llan t

____________ O n 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 M id d le D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D
. C
. C r i m i nal N o. 02- cr - 00242) D i s t r i ctJ udge: T he H onor abl e Sy l vi a H
. R ambo

A r gued J une 9, 2005 B E F O R E : A MB R O , V A N A N T W E R P E N a n d T A S H I MA , * C ir c u it J u d g e s ,2 ( Fi l ed: J une 30, 2005) D enni s E
. B oy l e ( A r gued) 1525 C edarC l i ff D r i ve C amp H i l l , PA 17011 C ouns el f orAppel l ant T hom as A
. M ar i no U ni t ed St at es A t t orney T heodor e B
. Sm i t h, I I I ( A r gued) A s s i s t antU
. S. A t t orney Feder al B ui l di ng 228 W al nutSt r eet H arr i s bur g, PA 17108 C ouns el f orAppel l ee
OP I NI ON
V A N A N T W E R PE N , C i r cui tJ udge A ppel l antC hr i s t opherM ornan w as char ged i n an 18- counti ndi ctm entw i t h m ai l fr aud, w i r e fr aud, and cons pi r acy ar i s i ng fr om an al l eged t el emar ket i ng s cheme. A j uryfound M o rn a n g u iltyo f

1 5 o f th e 1 8 c o u n ts, a n d h e w a s s e n ten c e d in a c c o rd a n c e w ith th e U n ite d S ta te s S e n te n c in g G u id e lin e s . M or nan now chal l enges var i ous evi dent i aryrul i ngs m ade by th e D istric t C o u rt d u rin g h is tria l. H e a lso a p p e a ls h is s ent ence i n l i ghtof the Supr eme C our t ’ s deci s i on i n U ni t ed St at es v. B ooker , 543 U
. S. __, 125 S. C t
. 738 ( 2005)
. Forthe3 rea so n s set fo rth b elow , w e w il l aff irm the D istri ct C o u rt ’s evi dent i aryrul i ngs and the convi ct i on, vaca t e the s ent ence , and r emand forr e- s ent enci ng. I
. F ACTUAL AND PR OCEDURAL HI S TORY A
. B ackgr ound M or nan’ s w i r e and mai l fr aud i ndi ctm ental l eged that h e w a s in v o lv e d in a “ c ro s s -b o rd e r a d v a n c e f e e s c h e m e ,” w her ebyhe and hi s co- cons pi r at or s , oper at i ng outof C anada , pl ace d new s paperadvert i s ement s i n t he U ni t ed St at es offe r i ng l oans t o hi gh- r i s k bor r ow er s . T he adve r t i s ement s pr ovi ded a t ol l

- fr ee numbert o cal l fordet ai l s . W hen a c us t om ercal l ed t he number , he ors he r eac hed one of m anyt el ephone s al es r oom s l ocat ed i n C anada
. A t el ephone s al es r epr es ent at i ve w oul d i ns t ructt he cus t om ert o compl et e and r eturn a l oan appl i cat i on. O nce the appl i cat i on w as compl et ed, another i ndi vi dual – a “c l os er ” – w oul d cal l the cus t om erand r epr es entt hatt he l oan had be en appr oved. T he cus t om erw as t hen t ol d t hathe ors he w oul d have t o pur chas e a l i fe or di s abi l i t yi ns ur ance pol i cyt o s ecur e the l oan. I n m any i ns t ance s , t he “c l os er ” w oul d t el l the cus t om erthatthe i ns ur ance pr emi um s w oul d be r eturned upon ful l r epaym ent o f th e lo a n a m o u n t. T he cus t om er s w ho s entm oneyor der s forthe “i ns ur ance pr emi um s ” neve ractual l yr ece i ved anyl oans , and t hei rpaym ent s w er e neve rr eturned. M ornan w as an as s i s t ant m anag er aton e of the t el eph on e sal es r oo m s, and he als o w or ked as a “c l os er , ” oft en us i ng the al i as “R i char d H ar di ng. ”A n o f f ice d iag ra m in d ica ted th a t th e d e sk b e lo n g e d to 1 R i char d H ar di ng, and M ornan admi t t ed t o t he pol i ce thathe w as w or ki ng undert hatname. 4 T h e G o v e rn m e n t f

u rth e r a lleg e d th a t M o rn a n e v e n tu a lly b e c a m e a “ h ig h e r le v e l m a n a g e r” a n d h a d a lea d e rsh ip ro le in t he s cheme. T h e telep h o n e re p rese n tat ives w o u ld tell cu stom ers t hatt heyw or ked on beha l f of a num berof l oan br oker age compani es , one of w hi ch w as Sun C orp. Fi nanci al Ser vi ces ( “Sun C orp. ”)
. O n J une 23, 1998, C anadi an l aw enfor cement a u th o rities c o n d u c ted a se a rc h o f th e S u n C o rp . o f

f ice s in O nt ar i o. T he pol i ce f

ound M ornan and hi s al l eged c ocons pi r at or , L es l i e C ar d, i n one of the off i ces . T he pol i ce confi s cat ed a l i s tof l oan appl i cant s , a l i s tof U ni t ed St at es new s paper s , and s om e Sun C orp. l oan appl i cat i ons fr om the des k M or nan w as us i ng. 1 T he C anadi an author i t i es al s o i nt ervi ew ed M ornan, w ho s t at ed thathe w as an “[ a] s s i s t antm anage r/ cl os er ” and t hathe and Car d s har ed the r ol e of of fi ce manager . ( A pp. at 1110. ) H e al s o s t at ed thathi s j ob w as t o ans w erphones , t ake cus t om er s ’ i nform at i on, and t el l them t hatthei rl oan appl i cat i on had bee n acc ept ed. ( I d. at1112. ) W hen as ked w hetherhe bel i eved thathi s companyw as actual l ypr ovi di ng l o a n s t o c u s t o me r s , M o r n a n r e s p o n d e d , “ No
. To my know l edge i t ’ s a r efe r r al agenc y . ” ( I d. at1111. ) W hen as ked w ho actual l ycont act s l ender s t o arr ange l oans , M ornan re s p o n d e d , “ I d o n ’t k n o w , th e re is n o le n d e r.” (I d . a t 1 1 1 0 .)5 B
. T r i al and Sent enci ng A tM or nan’ s t r i al , conduct ed fr om A pr i l 8 t o A pr i l 11, 2 0 0 3 , the G o v e rn m e n t p re se n ted th e tes tim o n yo f m u lti p le law e n f o rc e m e n t o f

f icia ls w h o w e re in v o lv e d in a “ stra teg ic p a rtn e rsh ip ” b e tw e e n th e U n ited S tate s a n d C a n a d a se t u p to i nv est i gate “cr oss- bo rderfrauds. ” T he G ov ernm ent al so pr es ent ed the t es t i m onyof 12 i ndi vi dual s w ho cl ai m ed t o be vi ct i m s of the t el emar ket i ng s cheme. I n addi t i on, the j uryw as s how n vi deot ape de pos i t i ons of J eff r eyPet er s , the l es s orof a T or ont o pr oper t yt hatM ornan r ent ed forus e as a t el ephone s al es r oom , and M i chel l e Ful fi t , one of the t el ephone s al es per s ons w ho fi el ded ca l l s i n O nt ar i o. A l s o r el evantt o t hi s appea l w as the t es t i m onyof A l t hea Burt on, t he cous i n of M i chae l W i l l ams, w ho ow ned a n d o p e ra ted Ic o n C h e q u e C a sh in g S e rv ice s, In c . (“I c o n ” ) in O nt ar i o. B ur t on w or ked forhercous i n atI con fr om M ay 2 0 0 0 to Ja n u a ry2 0 0 1 , an d th e G o v e rn m e n t atte m p ted to est abli sh t hroug h h er t est i m on ythat M ornan u sed Icon to cash m oneyor der s t hathad bee n m ade outt o var i ous “i ns ur ance co m p an ies. ” T h e G o v ern m en t w as p erm itted to sh o w the ju ry B ur t on’ s t es t i m onyi n t he form of a vi deot ape de pos i t i on that s he gave i n C anada
. D ur i ng thatt es t i m ony , B ur t on i ndi cat ed t hats he coul d no l ongerr emem berthe part i cul ar s of her empl oym entatI con. Faced w i t h herpurpor t ed mem oryl aps e, the G overnm entdi r ect ed B ur t on’ s at t ent i on t o a s t at ements he m ade t o t he pr os ecut orand U ni t ed St at es Post al I ns pect or M i chae l H ar t m an on Sept ember12, 2001, w her ei n s he6 i dent i fi ed M or nan as the i ndi vi dual w ho r out i nel ycas hed m oneyor der s atI con thatw er e made outt o s ever al “i ns ur ance compani es . ” H ow ever , B ur t on s t at ed thats he di d not r emem bert he part i cul ar s of the Sept ember2001 s t at ement ei t her
. She at t r i but ed herm emoryl os s t o back a nd neck in ju rie s s u f

f e re d d u rin g a n A u g u st 1 9 , 2 0 0 2 , au to m o b ile a c c id e n t. T he G overnm entthen att empt ed t o offe rthe s ubs t ance of the S eptem ber 200 1 st at em ent i nto evi den ce as a past r ecol l ect i on r ecor ded underFed. R
. E vi d. 803( 5)
. T he D i s t r i ctC our ti ni t i al l yrul ed thatthe s t at ementdi d notqual i fy underR ul e 803( 5)
. T he G overnm ental t ernat i vel yar gued that t he s t at ementw as admi s s i bl e as a pr i ori ncons i s t ents t at ement underFed. R
. E vi d. 801( d) ( 1) ( A ) , butthe courtal s o r ej ect ed t hatar gum ent
. H ow ever , aft err evi ew i ng B ur t on’ s vi deot ape t es t i m ony , t he D i s t r i ctC our tchange d i t s rul i ng and admi t t ed t he s t at ement , overt he def ens e’ s obj ect i on, as a pr i or inco n sist en t st atem en t un d er R u le 80 1 (d)(1 )(A ). T h e c o u rt re a so n e d th a t “it c a n ’t b e c o n c lu d e d th a t th e m e m o rylo ss is s ol el ydue t o t he ac ci dentas oppos ed t o herow n vol i t i on. . . . ” (A p p . a t 3 8 3 .) T h e f in a l p iec e o f

e v id e n c e th a t is re lev a n t to th is a p p e a l is th e tes tim o n yo f K irste n Ja c k so n , a f

o re n sic documentexami nerw i t h t he U ni t ed St at es Post al I ns pect i on Ser vi ce N at i onal For ens i c Labor at ory . T he G overnm ent cal l ed J acks on as a handw r i t i ng expertt o gi ve heropi ni on r egar di ng w hethera s i gnatur e on a l eas e, s om e handw r i t t en not es , and s i gnatur es on m oneyor der s w er e author ed by M ornan. J ackson t est i fi ed as t o h er qual i fi cat i on s as a7 d o c u m e n t ex a m in e r, an d th e D istric t C o u rt p e rm itt e d h e r to t es t i fy“as an expe r ti n the ar ea of for ens i c document exami nat i on. ” ( I d. at399. ) D efe ns e couns el di d notobj ectat trial to h e r te stim o n ya n d e x p re ss lyw a iv e d th e o p p o rtu n ityto co n d u ct a v o ird ir e o f Ja ck so n ’s qu ali fica ti o n s. (Id.) J acks on expl ai ned thats he form ed heropi ni ons by compar i ng t he ques t i oned document s w i t h an exa m pl e of M o rna n ’s ha n d w ri ti n g . S h e testi fied that h er a b il ityto f o rm an expe r topi ni on r egar di ng the authorof a s peci fi c w r i t i ng fal l s al ong a “c ont i nuum , ” depe ndi ng on degr ees of s i m i l ar i t i es and di ffe r ence s betw een the ques t i oned document an d the h an d w ri ti n g sam p le. S h e the n w en t th rou g h a v ery d e taile d p re se n tatio n e x p lain in g th e f a c to rs th a t co n trib u ted to herconcl us i ons i n t hi s cas e. O f 21 exhi bi t s ( orpages of e x h ib its) e x a m in e d , Ja c k so n c o n c lu d e d th a t M o rn a n d e f in itely w ro te f o u r o f th e m a n d “ p ro b a b ly” w ro te tw o o th e rs . H ow ever , s he coul d notr eac h a def i ni t i ve conc l us i on as t o 15 o f th e e x h ib its, tes tify in g th a t sh e w a s o n lya b le to n o te sim il arit ies b etw ee n thes e d o cu m en ts an d M o rna n ’s handw r i t i ng, butnotenough t o concl ude thathe w as defi ni t el y , oreven pr obabl y , the author
. W hen as ked on cr os s - exami nat i on w hetherheropi ni ons w er e r ender ed “w i t hi n a r eas onabl e degr ee of s ci ent i fi c ce r t ai nty , ” s he r es ponded, “I t hi nk t heyar e. ” ( I d. at455. ) A gai n, al t hough defe ns e couns el cr os s - exami ned J acks on r egar di ng herdegr ee of ce r t ai nt y , t he def

ens e made no obj ect i on t o her qual i fi cat i ons as an expe r tort o t he admi s s i bi l i t yof her t e s t i m o n y. A tt he cl os e of the evi dence , the j uryfound M ornan8 gui l t yon 11 count s of m ai l fr aud, thr ee c ount s of w i r e fr aud, an d o n e c o u n t of

co n sp ir ac yto co m m itm ail fra u d an d w ir e fr aud. T he j ur yfound M ornan notgui l t yon t w o count s of m ai l fr aud and one countof w i r e fr aud. T he j ury ’ s ver di ct w as ent er ed on A pr i l 15, 2003. T he Pr obat i on O ffi ce c o m p iled a P re se n ten c e In v e stig a tio n R e p o rt (“ P S R ” ) in pr epar at i on fors ent enci ng. T he PSR al l eged thatM ornan w or ked w i t h ni ne co- cons pi r at or s , thatthe cr i m e i nvol ved s ophi s t i cat ed means , t hatM ornan w as an or gani zerorl eade r of a c r i m e i nvol vi ng fi ve orm or e part i ci pant s , and thathe w as res po nsi ble for $557 , 30 5. 00 i n loss es t o 7 52 vict i m s. D efen se cou nsel fi l ed ti m el yobj ect i on s t o these al l egati on s. T he D i s t r i ctC our thel d a s ent enci ng hear i ng on J anuary29, 2004, and found thatthe fa ctual al l egat i ons i n t he P S R w ere estab li sh ed b ya p rep o n d era n ce o f th e e v iden ce . In acc or dance w i t h t he U ni t ed St at es Sent enci ng G ui del i nes , the D i stri ctC ou rtapp l i ed a 2 4-l evel i ncrease t o M ornan’s base offe ns e l evel of 6. T hi s r ai s ed hi s G ui del i nes s ent enci ng ran g e f rom 0 -6 m o n ths to 9 7 -12 1 m o n ths. T h e D istri ct C o u rt s ent ence d M or nan t o a pr i s on t erm of 120 m ont hs , t o be foll ow ed b yt hree y ears of sup ervi sed rel ease. T he co urtal so or der ed M or nan t o pay$145, 464. 90 i n r es t i tut i on and i m pos ed a s peci al as s es s m entof $1, 500. 00.

I I
. J UR I S DI CT I ON P u rsua n t t o 1 8 U
. S
. C
. § 3 2 3 1 , the D istri ct C o u rt pr oper l yexer ci s ed s ubj ectm at t erj ur i s di ct i on overthe fe der al cr i m i nal char ges ar i s i ng under18 U
. S. C
. §§ 371, 1341, and 1343. M or nan fi l ed a t i m el yN ot i ce of A ppeal on February6,I n hi s i ni t i al br i ef t o t hi s C our t , M ornan ra i s ed a f i fth i s s ue, 2 claimi ng t hatt he G overnm ent ’ s t r i al exhi bi t s w er e neve r pr oper l yadmi t t ed i nt o evi dence and t hus s houl d not have be en s how n t o t he j ur y . H ow ever, the G overnm ents ubm i t t ed a Suppl ement al A ppendi x i ncl udi ng por t i ons of t he tr i al tr ans cr i pt w h e re in th e c o u rt p ro p e rlya d m itt e d th e G o v e rn m e n t’s e x h ib its i nt o evi dence w i t houtobj ect i on. A ccor d ingl y , M ornan expr es s l yabandone d thi s i s s ue i n hi s R epl yB r i ef. 9 2004, and thi s C our thas j ur i s di ct i on overthe appe al pur s uant to 2 8 U
. S
. C
. § 1 2 9 1 an d 1 8 U
. S
. C
. § 3 7 4 2 (a).

III
. A N A L Y S IS M o rn a n ra ise s f

o u r iss u e s o n a p p e a l: th e a d m iss ib ili ty of A l t hea Burt on’ s pr i ors t at ement ; the admi s s i bi l i t yof K i r s t en J acks on’ s expertt es t i m ony ; the s uffi ci encyof evi dence adduce d att r i al t o s us t ai n a j udgm entof convi ct i on; a n d th e p ro p rie tyo f

h is s e n ten c e u n d e r th e S ix th A m endment
. W e w i l l addr es s eac h of thes e i s s ues i n turn.

2 A
. A dm i s s i bi l i t yof B ur t on’ s Pr i orSt at ement 1. Standar d of

R evi ew “T o the e x tent that o u r rev iew o f th e D istri ct C o u rt ’s det erm i nat i on i m pl i cat es i t s i nt erpr et at i on of the Feder al R ul es of Evi dence , ourr evi ew i s pl enary , butw her e the D istric t C o u rt’s r u lin g w a s ‘b a se d o n a p e rm iss ib le i nt erpr et at i on of a rul e, ’ w e r evi ew onl yforan abus e of10 di s cr et i on. ” U ni t ed St at es v. Pepper s , 302 F. 3d 120, 137 ( 3d C i r . 2002) ( quot i ng U ni t ed St at es v. C ons ol e, 13 F. 3d 641, 6 5 6 (3d C ir
. 1 9 9 3 )). 2. D is cus s i on A lth o u g h the D istri ct C o u rtad m itted B u rt o n ’s Sept ember2001 s t at ementas a pr i ori ncons i s t ents t at ement u n d e r R u le 8 0 1 (d )(1 )(A ), b o th p a rties se e m to a g re e th a t R u le 803( 5) “i s t he bett erof the tw o pr offe r ed gr ounds for admi s s i bi l i t y . ” ( B r i ef f orA ppel l ee a t33, n. 7. ) T he part i es there fo re f

o cu s the irarg u m en ts on the s tat em en t’ s a d m iss ib ili tya s a p a st re c o llec tio n re c o rd e d , an d w e w ill a d d re ss th a t issu e f

irst.

a. A nal y s i s underFed. R
. E vi d. 803( 5) W e agr ee w i t h M ornan thatB ur t on’ s pr i ors t at ement di d notm eett he r equi r ement s of R ul e 803( 5) beca us e B ur t on nei t heradopt ed norr evi ew ed the s t at ementpr i ort o her p u rp o rte d m e m o rylo ss . T h e h e a rsa ye x c e p tio n u n d e r R u le 80 3(5) pr ov i des: R ec o rde d rec o ll ec ti o n . A m em o ran d u m o r reco rd conce r ni ng a mat t eraboutw hi ch a w i t nes s once ha d k n o w led g e b u t n o w h a s in su f f icie n t re c o llec tio n to e n a b l e t h e w i t n e s s t o t e s t i f y f u l l y a n d a c c u r a t e l y, show n to have been m ad e or ad op t ed b y the w i tness w hen the mat t erw as fr es h i n t he w i t nes s ’ m emoryand t o r efl ectt hatknow l edge c orr ect l y . I f admi t t ed, the m emora ndum orr ecor d m aybe r ead i nt o evi dence but11 m aynoti t s el f be r ece i ved as an exhi bi tunl es s offe r ed b y a n a d v e r s e p a r t y. Fed. R
. E vi d. 803 ( emphasi s added)
. T hi s rul e r equi r es the w i t nes s t o have e i t herm ade the r ecor d her s el f, ort o have r evi ew ed and a dopt ed the s t at ement , ata t i m e w hen the mat t er itco n ce rne d w as f

resh in h er m em o ry . S ee 5 -80 3 W eins tei n ’s Feder al E vi dence § 803. 07[d] ( “A m emora ndum w r i t t en by a n o th e r is a d m iss ib le a s th e w itn e ss ’s r e c o rd e d re c o llec tio n if t he w i t nes s can t es t i fy( 1) thatthe w i t nes s chec ked the m emora ndum w hen the mat t eri tconce r ned w as fr es h i n hi s or herm emory , and ( 2) t hatthe w i t nes s then knew i tt o be corr ect
. ”)
. W her e, as her e, the s t at ementw as r ecor ded by s om eone othert han the dec l ar ant , acc ur acym aybe es t abl i s hed thr ough t he t es t i m onyof the per s on w ho r ecor ded t he s t at ement
. U ni t ed St at es v. B ooz, 751 F. 2d 719, 725 ( 3d C ir . 1 9 7 1 ). I n t hi s cas e, t he r ecor di ng w as m ade bya typi s tand at t es t ed t o byan “of

fi ci al exami ner ” i n C anada , and the G overnm entdi d nots how thatB ur t on ei t herr evi ew ed or a d o p ted th e e x a m in e r’s re c o rd in g . S h e tes tifie d th a t sh e c o u ld notr emem beri f s he r evi ew ed the s t at ement , and the w r i t i ng does notbearB ur t on’ s s i gnatur e t o i ndi cat e thats he r evi ew ed it a n d a tte s te d to its a c c u ra c ya t th e tim e th e re c o rd w a s m a d e . B ur t on al s o coul d notat t es tt o t he ac cur acyof hers t at ement dur i ng hercurr entt es t i m ony . A l t hough s he r emem ber ed bei ng pl ace d underoath befor e gi vi ng the Sept ember2001 s t at ement , w hen as ked w hetherthe r ecor di ng w as acc ur at e, B u rto n re p lied , “I d o n ' t k n o w th a t f o r c e rta in , b u t I w o u ld hope s o. ” ( A pp. at805. ) M or eover , the G overnm entdi d not12 cal l t he off

i ci al exami neras a w i t nes s t o es t abl i s h t hatthe re c o rd in g a c c u ra telyre f lec ted B u rto n ’s o ra l sta tem e n t. T h e G o v e rn m e n t atte m p ts to e sta b lish a c c u ra c yin th is cas e bypoi nt i ng t o var i ous i ndi ci a of r el i abi l i t y , s uch as the fac tt hatB ur t on w as underoath and w as pr om i s ed thatthe s t at ementw oul d notbe us ed aga i ns ther
. T he G overnm ent r el i es on t he Si xt h C i r cui t ’ s deci s i on i n U ni t ed St at es v. Por t er , 986 F. 2d 1014 ( 6th C i r . 1993) , and the Second C ir cu it ’s de cisi o n in P ark er v . R ed a, 32 7 F
. 3 d 2 1 1 (2d C ir
. 2003) , fort he pr opos i t i on that“R ul e 803( 5) does nots peci fy anypar t i cul arm ethod of es t abl i s hi ng the know l edge of the decl ar antnort he ac cur acyof the s t at ement
. ” Por t er , 986 F. 2d at1017; s ee a l s o Par ker , 327 F. 3d at214. H ow ever , Por t er and Parkerar e di s t i ngui s habl e fr om thi s cas e bec aus e the G overnm entdi d nots how thatB ur t on m ade, r evi ew ed, or ado pted the st at em ent ati ssue here. In Po rt er, the w i t ness r evi ew ed and s i gned the w r i t t en s t at ementati s s ue on ea ch page, 986 F. 2d at1017, and i n Par ker , the w i t nes s w r ot e and s i gned the s t at ementhi m s el f, 327 F. 3d at213. T he i ndi ci a of r el i abi l i t yt o w hi ch the G overnm ent p o in ts m a ysu p p o rt th e p o sitio n th a t B u rto n sp o k e tru th f u llyin Sept ember2001, butt he G overnm enthas notes t abl i s hed – t hr ough B ur t on’ s curr entt es t i m ony , the t es t i m onyof the “off i ci al exami ner , ” orB ur t on’ s s i gnatur e on the w r i t i ng – t hatt he w r i t t en r ecor di ng r ead t o t he j uryw as ei t herm ade or a d o p te d b yB u rt o n , a s is e x p re s s ly re q u ir e d b yR u le 8 0 3 (5 ). T he D i s t r i ctC our tt her efor e corr ect l yhel d t hatR ul e 803( 5) d o e s n o t ap p lyto B u rto n ’s S e p tem b e r 2 0 0 1 sta tem e n t.13 b. A nal y s i s underFed. R
. E vi d. 8 0 1 ( d ) ( 1 ) ( A) A l t hough w e w i l l notr el yon R ul e 803( 5) t o aff i r m the Di s t r i c tCo u r t ’ s a d mi s s i o n o f Bu r t o n ’ s p r i o rs t a t e me n t , we w i l l aff i r m t he court ’ s deci s i on t o admi tthe s t at ementunder F e d . R . E v id . 8 0 1 (d )(1 )(A ). T h a t ru le p ro v id e s th a t a w i t nes s ’ s pr i ors t at ementi s notcons i der ed hea r s ayw her e: T h e d e c lar a n t tes tifie s a t th e trial o r h e a rin g a n d is su b jec t to c ro ss -e x a m in a tio n c o n c e rn in g th e sta tem e n t, and the s t at ementi s ( A ) i ncons i s t entw i t h t he d e c lar a n t’s te stim o n y , an d w a s g iv e n u n d e r o a th s ubj ectt o t he pena l t yof per j uryata tr i al , hear i ng, or o th e r p ro c e e d in g , o r i n a d e p o s itio n . . . . Fed. R
. E vi d. 801( d) ( 1)
. T hatB ur t on’ s Sept ember2001 s t at ementw as gi ven underoath ata pr i ordepos i t i on and that s he w as s ubj ectt o cr os s - exami nat i on dur i ng hercurr ent tes tim o n yis n o t in d isp u te. M o rn a n a rg u e s o n a p p e a l, how ever , t hatt he pr i ors t at ementw as notactual l yi ncons i s t ent w i t h B ur t on’ s curr entt es t i m ony . See U ni t ed St at es v. Pal um bo, 639 F. 2d 123, 128 n. 6 ( 3d C i r . 1981) ( “l ack of m emoryas t o t he s ubs t ance of a pr i ors t at ementm aynotbe i ncons i s t enti n cert ai n ci r cumst ance s w i t h t he pr i or s ta te m e n t.” ). W e a g ree w ith M o rna n that a w itn ess’s lac k o f m em o ry r egar di ng a pr i ors t at ementi s notdi amet r i cal l yoppos ed t o t he s ubs t ance of thats t at ement
. H ow ever , i ncons i s t encyunder R ul e 801( d) ( 1) ( A ) i s notl i m i t ed t o di amet r i cal l yoppos ed14 s t at ement s . See 5- 801 W ei ns t ei n' s Feder al E vi dence § 801. 21[2] [b] ( “A w i t nes s ’ s s t at ementthathe ors he has no re c o llec tio n o f

th e su b jec t m a yb e tre a ted a s ‘in c o n sis ten t’ w i t h a form ers t at ementconce r ni ng the now

- for got t en m at t er . ”)
. A l t hough t hi s C our tnot ed i n Pal um bo, 639 F. 2d at 128 n. 6, t hata pr i ors t at ements houl d notbe admi t t ed i f the w itn e ss ’s c u rre n t m e m o rylo ss re g a rd in g th a t sta tem e n t is genui ne, w e j oi n s ever al ot herci r cui t s i n hol di ng thata pr i or stat em en t m ayb e a d m itted u n d er R u le 80 1 (d)(1 )(A ) w her e the w i tnes s ’s m em or

y l os s is notgenui ne . See, e. g. , U ni t ed St at es v. B i gham, 812 F. 2d 943, 946- 47 ( 5th C i r . 1987) ( pr i orgr and j ur yt es t i m onyi s admi s s i bl e w her e the w i t nes s “w as obvi ous l yan eva s i ve and r el uct antw i t nes s , and the tr i al j udge r eas onabl ycoul d have c oncl uded thathi s l os s of m emoryw as f e ig n e d ” ); U n ited S tate s v . W ill iam s, 7 3 7 F .2 d 5 9 4 , 6 0 8 (7 th C i r . 1984) ( i n t he cont extof a r eca l ci t r antw i t nes s , l ack of m em o ryis i n co n sist en t w ith d etail ed g ran d jurytest im o n y ); U n it ed S tat es v . T h o m p so n , 7 0 8 F
. 2 d 1 2 9 4 , 1 3 0 2 (8th C ir
. 1983) ( “The di s t r i ctcour ts houl d have c ons i der abl e di s cr et i on to d e ter m in e w h e th e r e v a siv e a n sw e rs a re in c o n sis ten t w ith s t at ement s pr evi ous l ygi ven. ”) ; s ee a l s o U ni t ed St at es v. O w e n s , 4 8 4 U .S . 5 5 4 , 5 6 5 (1 9 8 8 ) ( “ It w o u ld s e e m s tr a n g e . . . t o as s er tt hata w i t nes s can a voi d i ntr oduct i on of t es t i m ony fr om a pr i orpr ocee di ng . . . bys i m pl yas s ert i ng l ack of m em o ryo f th e f

ac ts t o w h ich th e p ri o r t esti m o n yrelated
. ”). In th is c a se , the D istric t C o u rt a c ted w ith in its di s cr et i on w hen i tfound thatB ur t on’ s purpor t ed l ack of m emoryw as notgenui ne. ( See A pp. at383. ) B ur t on cl ai m ed t hatherm emoryl os s w as caus ed bya r el at i vel ym i nor aut om obi l e ac ci dentt hatoccurr ed i n A ugus t2002. A ft erthe15 acc i dent , s he w as nothos pi t al i zed, and s he w as nevertr eat ed form emoryl os s . She w as nevergi ven anym edi cat i on s tr o n g e r t h a n T y le n o l 3 f o r h e r h e a d a n d n e c k in

ju ri e s . M or eover , B ur t on t es t i fi ed thats he w as aw ar e thathercous i n, M ich a e l W ill iam s, h a d b e e n in d icte d f o r h is a lleg e d ro le in t he fr aud, thats he i s cl os e t o hercous i n, and thats he had a “fa m i l ym eet i ng of s or t s ” w i t h W i l l i ams’ s i s t erthe ni ght befor e gi vi ng hervi deot aped t es t i m ony . ( A pp. at801. ) G i ven t he ci r cumst ance s s ur r oundi ng B ur t on’ s t es t i m ony , “[t ] he d istric t co u rt re a so n a b lyc o u ld h a v e c o n c lu d e d th a t th is s el ect i ve mem or yl os s w as m or e conve ni entthan ac tual
. ” B i gham, 812 F. 2d at947. W e ther efor e fi nd no abus e of di s cr et i on i n t he admi s s i on of B ur t on’ s Sept ember2001 sta tem e n t as a p rio r in c o n sis ten t sta tem e n t u n d e r R u le 8 0 1 (d)(1 )(A ). B
. A dm i s s i bi l i t yof J acks on’ s E xper tT es t i m ony 1. Standar d of

R evi ew W her e a de fenda ntfai l s t o obj ectt o t he admi s s i on of ev iden ce (i n clud ing ex p ert t esti m o n y ) du ri n g tr ial , this C o u rt re v ie w s th e d e c is io n to a d m it th a t e v id e n c e f o r p la in e rr o r. U ni t ed St at es v. A dams, 252 F. 3d 276, 278- 79 ( 3d C i r . 2001) (cit ing Jo h n so n v . U n it ed S tat es, 52 0 U
. S
. 4 6 1 (19 9 7 )); U n it ed S tat es v . W atso n , 2 6 0 F
. 3 d 3 0 1 , 3 0 6 (3d C ir
. 2 0 0 1 ); s ee a l s o Fed. R
. C r i m . P. 52( b)
. T hi s C our tr ece nt l yexpl ai ned o u rr o l e i n e x e r c i s i n g p l a i n e r r o rr e v i e w: U nderpl ai n err orr evi ew , w e maygr antr el i ef i f ( 1) the D is tr ic t C o u rt c o m m itte d a n “ e rr o r,” (2 ) i t w a s “ p la in ,”16 a n d (3 ) i t a f

f e c te d “ s u b s ta n tia l r ig h ts ” o f th e d e f e n d a n t. U ni t ed St at es v. O l ano, 507 U
. S. 725, 732 ( 1993)
. “A devi at i on fr om a l egal rul e i s [an] ‘ err or . ’ ” U ni t ed St at es v. R us s el l , 134 F. 3d 171, 180 ( 3d C i r . 1998) ( ci t at i on om i t t ed)
. I ti s “pl ai n” w hen “‘ cl ear ’ or ‘ obvi ous . ’ ” I d. ( ci t at i on om i t t ed)
. I n or derforan err or t o aff ect“s ubs t ant i al r i ght s , ” i tm us thave be en “pr ej udi ci al ”; i n otherw or ds , “i tm us thave a ffe ct ed t he out come of t he di s t r i ctcour tpr ocee di ngs . ” O l ano, 5 0 7 U. S
. a t7 3 4
. I f

th e s e r e q u i r e me n t s a r e s a t i s f i e d , we s houl d exer ci s e ourdi s cr et i on t o gr antr el i ef i f the err or “ ‘se rio u slya f

f e c ts th e f a irn e ss , inte g rityo r p u b lic r eput at i on of j udi ci al pr ocee di ngs . ’ ” I d. at736 ( ci t at i on om i t t ed) ; s ee a l s o A dams, 252 F. 3d at284- 85. U n it ed S tat es v . P lott s, 3 5 9 F
. 3 d 2 4 7 , 2 4 9 (3d C ir
. 2 0 0 4 ). 2. D is cus s i on A n expertw i t nes s m aybe perm i t t ed t o t es t i fy r egar di ng “s ci ent i fi c, t echni cal , orot hers peci al i zed know l edge” i f i t“w i l l as s i s tthe tr i erof fa ctt o under s t and the e v id e n c e o r t o d e te rm in e a f a c t in is s u e .” F e d . R . E v id . 7 0 2
. I n or dert o qual i fyas expertt es t i m onyunderthe Feder al R ul es , t he fol l ow i ng thr ee r equi r ement s m us tbe s at i s fi ed: ( 1) t he t es t i m onym us tbe “ba s ed upon s uffi ci entfac t s ordat a”; ( 2) t he t es t i m onym us tbe “the pr oductof r el i abl e pr i nci pl es and met hods ”; and ( 3) the w i t nes s m us thave “ appl i ed the p ri n c ip le s a n d m e th o d s re lia b ly to th e f a c ts o f th e c a s e .” Id
. T h is C o u rt h a s p re v io u slyh e ld th a t h a n d w riting a n a ly sis in gener al i s s uffi ci ent l yt echni cal i n natur e t o be the s ubj ectof17 expertt es t i m onyunderR ul e 702 and the s t andar d art i cul at ed b yth e S u p re m e C o u rt in D a u b e rt v . M e rr e ll D o w P h a rm ., I nc. , 509 U
. S. 579 ( 1993)
. U ni t ed St at es v. V el as quez, 64 F. 3d 844, 850- 51 ( 3d C i r . 1995)
. T he i s s ue her e i s thus w h e th e r Ja c k so n ’s te stim o n yin p a rticu lar w a s s u f f icie n tly d e ta ile d a n d re lia b le to b e h e lp f u l to th e ju ry. W e a re m in d f

u l th a t “w h e th e r D a u b e rt’s s p e c if ic fac t or s ar e, orar e not , r eas onabl e meas ur es of r el i abi l i t yi n a par t i cul arcas e i s a mat t erthatthe l aw gr ant s the tr i al j udge b ro a d latitu d e to d e ter m in e . ” K u m h o T ire C o . v . C a rm ich a e l, 5 2 6 U .S . 1 3 7 , 1 5 2 (1 9 9 9 ). D e f e re n c e to th e trial ju d g e is p a rticu lar lyw a rra n ted w h e re th e d e f e n d a n t d o e s n o t o b

jec t to t he admi s s i bi l i t yof the expe r t ’ s t es t i m ony . U nderR ul e 702 an d the S u p rem e C o u rt ’s ruli n g in D au b ert, the D istri ct C o u rt h as a n o b li g ati o n to ev alua te th e re li ab il ityo f e x p ert t es t i m ony“w her e s uch t es t i m ony ’ s fac tual bas i s , dat a, p rin c ip les , m e th o d s, o r th e ir a p p lica tio n a re c a lled su f f icie n tly into q u esti o n , ” K u m h o T ir e, 52 6 U
. S
. at 14 9
. H o w ev er, w here the o pp osi ng partydo es not s uff i ci entl ycal l these iss u e s in to q u e stio n , w e w ill n o t f in d p lain e rro r m e re ly beca us e the D i s t r i ctC our tdi d notconductan ext ens i ve D aubertanal y s i s on t he r ecor d. See M acs ent i v. B ecke r , 237 F. 3d 1223, 1231- 32 ( 10t h C i r . 2001) ( “D aubertdoes not m a n d a te a n in q u iryq u e stio n in g a n d c h a llen g in g th e sc ien tific p ro f f e r a b se n t a tim e lyre q u e st b ya n o b jec tin g p a rty .”); H o u lt v. H oul t , 57 F. 3d 1, 4- 5 ( 1s tC i r . 1995) ( “W e do notthi nk, how ever , t hatdi s t r i ctcour t s ar e r equi r ed, s ua s pont e, t o m ake expl i ci ton- t he- r ecor d rul i ngs r egar di ng the admi s s i bi l i t yof expertt es t i m ony . ”) ; s ee a l s o U ni t ed St at es v. E vans , 272 F. 3d 1069, 1094 ( 8t h C i r . 2001) ( “Ther e i s no r equi r ementthatthe18 D istric t C o u rt a lw a y s h o ld a D a u b e rt h e a rin g p rio r to q u a lif y in g a n e x p e rt w itn e s s . . . .” ). I n t hi s cas e, J acks on expl ai ned herqual i fi cat i ons , her m ethodol ogy , t he bas es forherconcl us i ons , and the degr ees o f c e rt a in ty w ith w h ic h s h e w a s a b le to re a c h h e r c o n c lu s io n s . M or nan neve r t hel es s chal l enges the admi s s i bi l i t yof her t est i m on ybased o n the answ er t o o ne q uest i on on cross exami nat i on. W hen the def ens e att orneyas ked J acks on w hetherheropi ni ons w er e r ender ed t o a “r eas onabl e degr ee of s ci ent i fi c ce r t ai nt y , ” s he r epl i ed, “I thi nk theyar e. ” ( A pp. at 45 5
. ) A s the G o v ern m en t has p o inted o u t, h o w ev er, “th ere i s not hi ng m agi cal aboutthe phr as e, ‘ t o a r eas onabl e degr ee of s ci ent i fi c ce r t ai nt y . ’ ” ( B r i ef f orA ppel l ee a t52. ) I ti s not d erive d fro m the lan g u ag e o f R u le 70 2 it self, an d this C o u rt has been una bl e t o fi nd anyauthor i t yt o s uppor tthe pos i t i on th a t q u e stio n s re g a rd in g th e e x p e rt’s “ d e g re e o f sc ien tific c e rt a in ty” c a te g o ri c a lly re n d e rs e x p e rt te s tim o n yin a d m is s ib le
.
Ha n d wr i t i n g e x p e r t s o f t e n g i v e th e i ro p i n i o n s i n t e r ms of pr obabi l i t i es r atherthan ce r t ai nt i es . See, e. g. , U ni t ed St at es v. R os ar i o, 118 F. 3d 160, 163 ( 3d C i r . 1997) ( cons i der i ng a handw r i t i ng expert ’ s t es t i m onythatthe defe ndant“pr obabl y ” author ed a f or ged che ck i n aff

i r m i ng a for geryconvi ct i on) ; U ni t ed St at es v. M cG l ory , 968 F. 2d 309, 3 4 6 (3 d C ir. 1 9 9 2 ) (h a n d w riting tes tim o n yis a d m iss ib le “eve n i f the handw r i t i ng experti s notabs ol ut el ycert ai n t hat t he handw r i t i ng i s t hatof the def endant
. ”) ; U ni t ed St at es v. G al vi n, 394 F. 2d 228, 229 n. 1 ( 3d C i r . 1968) ( handw r i t i ng tes tim o n yis n o t re n d e re d in a d m iss ib le m e re ly“ b e c a u se itJ a c k s o n ’s p ra c tic e o f g iv in g o p in io n s a lo n g a “ c o n tin u u m ,” 3 i s verys i m i l art o t he pr act i ce c om m onl yi m pl emen te d by documentexami ner s , as des cr i bed bythi s C our ti n R os ar i o: “Pr ob a b l e ” i s a t e r m of a r tu s e d b ySe c r e tSe r v i ce d o c u m e n t ex a m in e rs. T h e “ p ro b a b le” c a teg o ryf a lls exac t l yi n t he mi ddl e of t he s i x- poi nts pectrum betw een “ p o s itiv e id e n tif

ic a tio n ” a n d “ p o s itiv e e lim in a tio n .” T hus , handw r i t i ng expert s w i l l us e the t erm “pr obabl e” to d e sc rib e tim e s w h e n th e e v id e n c e f a lls c o n s id e ra b ly sh o rt o f th e “ v irtu a llyc e rta in ” c a teg o rya n d y e t still p o ints rath er stro n g lytow ard the s u sp ec t, i. e., there are sev er al s i gni fi cants i m i l ar i t i es pr es entbetw een the ques t i oned and know n w r i t i ngs , but t her e ar e al s o a num berof i r r econc i l abl e di ffe r ence s and the exa m i ner s us pect s t hatt heyare due t o s om e fa ct orbutcannot s afe l yat t r i but e the l ack of agr eement t o t he eff ectof that fa ctor. 118 F. 3d at163 19 expr es s es a pr obabi l i ty ”)
. I ndeed, J acks on t es t i fi ed that r ender i ng “l es s - t han- cert ai n” opi ni ons i s an ac cept ed pr act i ce in h e r f ield
. W e th e re f

o re f in d n o e rro r (le t alo n e a p lain 3 erro r) i n the D istri ct C o u rt ’s de cisi o n to allow Jac k so n ’s tes tim o n ya n d to a llo w th e ju ryto d e ter m in e w h a t w e ig h t to gi ve her“l es s - t han- cert ai n” conc l us i ons . See M cG l ory , 968 F. 2d at346 ( “A nyi s s ue r egar di ng the ce r t ai ntyof [the handw r i t i ng expert ’ s ] t es t i m onygoes t o t he w ei ghtgi ven that test im o n yan d co u ld b e tested b ycro ss-ex am ination
. ”);20 G al vi n, 394 F. 2d at229 n. 1 ( “r es ervat i ons i n t he expr es s ed opi ni on . . . go t o t he w ei ghtof the evi dence and ar e a d eterm ination fo r th e juryo r fa ct-find er to m ak e. . . . ”). C
. Suffi ci encyof the Evi dence 1. Standar d of

R evi ew W her e, as her e, a def

endantdoes notpr es erve the i s s ue of s uffi ci encyof the evi dence bym aki ng a t i m el ym ot i on for jud g m en t of

ac q u ittal at th e c lose o f th e e v iden ce , this C o u rt r evi ew s t he s uffi ci encyof the evi dence forpl ai n err or . U ni t ed St at es v. W ol fe, 245 F. 3d 257, 260- 61 ( 3d C i r . 2001) ; U ni t ed S t at es v. G ay do s, 10 8 F
. 3d 50 5, 50 9 (3d C i r. 19 97 ); see al so F e d
. R. Cr i m. P
. 5 2 ( b )
. I n c o n d u c t i n g p l a i n e r r o rr e v i e w, we “vi ew t he evi dence i n the l i ghtm os tfavor abl e t o t he g o v e rn m e n t an d m u st s u sta in a ju ry ’s v e rd ict if ‘a re a so n a b le j ur ybel i evi ng t he governm ent ’ s evi dence coul d fi nd bey ond a re a so n a b le d o u b t th a t th e g o v e rn m e n t p ro v e d a ll th e e lem e n ts of the off

ens es . ’ ” R os ar i o, 188 F. 3d at163 ( quot i ng U ni t ed S tate s v . S a lm o n , 9 4 4 F .2 d 1 1 0 6 , 1 1 1 3 (3 d C ir. 1 9 9 1 )). T h is pl ace s a “ve r yheavybur den” on the appe l l ant
. I d. ( quot i ng U n it ed S tat es v . C o y le, 6 3 F
. 3 d 1 2 3 9 , 1 2 4 3 (3d C ir
. 1 9 9 5 )). 2. D is cus s i on I n t hi s appea l , M ornan cha l l enges the s uffi ci encyof th e e v id e n c e to su sta in h is c o n sp ira c yc o n v ictio n , es se n tially cl ai m i ng t hatt he evi dence offe r ed attr i al r evea l ed “that M or nan w as m er el yan empl oy ee i n t hi s s cheme” r atherthan a w i l l i ng par t i ci panti n a cons pi r acyt o defr aud. ( B r i ef f or21 A ppel l antat40. ) H ow ever , vi ew i ng the evi dence adduce d at t r i al i n t he l i ghtm os tfavor abl e t o t he G overnm ent , that evi dence s ugges t ed thatM ornan w as m uch more than an e m p lo y e e . Fi r s t , M or nan hi m s el f admi t t ed t o t he pol i ce thathe w a s a n o f

f ic e m a n a g e r a t th e S u n C o rp . o f f ic e s in 1 9 9 8
. Second, t he pol i ce f

ound a l i s tof U ni t ed St at es new s paper s on M or nan’ s des k atSun C orp. , fr om w hi ch a j urycoul d i nfer t hathe had a tl eas ts om e r es pons i bi l i t yforpl aci ng the m isle a d in g a d v e rtise m e n ts th a t w e re a t th e h e a rt o f th is s cheme. Fi nal l y , t he G overnm entpr oduced e vi dence and t es t i m onyt endi ng t o s how thatM ornan hi m s el f l eas ed off i ce s pace , r ent ed mai l boxes , r ece i ved mai l , and ca s hed money o rd e rs o n b e h a lf

o f th e sh a m c o m p a n ies th a t w e re se t u p to c a rryo u t th e sc h e m e . A re a so n a b le ju ryb e liev in g th is evi dence coul d cert ai nl yfi nd bey ond a r eas onabl e doubtthat M o rn a n w a s g u ilty o f

w ir e f ra u d , m a il f

ra u d , a n d c o n s p ir a c y . W e w i l l t her efor e af

fi r m hi s convi ct i on. D
. M or nan’ s Sent enci ng C hal l enge A s n o ted , M o rn a n re c e iv e d su b sta n tial e n h a n c e m e n ts to h is s e n ten c e b a se d o n f a c ts n o t alle g e d in th e in d ictm e n t, pr oven t o t he j ur ybey ond a r eas onabl e doubt , oradmi t t ed by th e d e f e n d a n t. U n d e r a m a n d a to ryG u id e lin e s s y ste m , this w oul d cl ear l ycons t i tut e a vi ol at i on of M ornan’ s r i ght s under th e S ix th A m e n d m e n t as in ter p re ted b yth e S u p re m e C o u rt in B ooker , 543 U
. S. __, 125 S. C t
. 738. T her efor e, havi ng concl uded thats ent enci ng i s s ues thatar i s e i n l i ghtof the B o o k e r d e c isio n a re b e st d e ter m in e d b yth e D istric t C o u rt in22 t he fi r s ti ns t ance , U ni t ed St at es v. D avi s , 407 F. 3d 162, 165- 66 ( 3d C i r . 2005) ( en banc ) , w e w i l l vaca t e the s ent ence and r emand forr e- s ent enci ng.