### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 07- 60247

U N IT E D S T A T E S O F A M E R IC A , P la in tiff-A p p e lle e , ve r s us KENN ET H ST AL NAKER; KI M BERL Y A

. CAS TL E, D efen da n t s- A pp el l an t s .
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

N o. 07- 60079

UN I TE D S TA TE S OF AM ERI CA, P l a i n ti ff-A p p ell a n t, ve r s us RI CHARD B. L UCAS ; KI M BERL Y A

. CAS TL E; KENNETH ST AL NAKER, D efen da n t s- A pp el l ees. United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D June 10, 2 009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I Clerk2 A pp eal s f

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt fo rth e S o u th e r n D is tr ic t o f M is s is s ip p i

N o . 2 :06 -C R -1 -4

B ef ore D AV IS, SM ITH , an d O W E N , C i rcui tJu dg es. JE R R YE
. SM ITH , C i rcui tJu dg e:
K e nne t h St al n ak er and K i m be r l y Cas t l e w e r e f o und gui l t y o f

v ar i o us cri m es, i n cl u di n g ban k f rau d and w i re f

rau d. A f

t er t h e verdi ct , t h e di st ri ctcourt di sm i ssed t h e ban k f

rau d-r el ated cou n t s. T h e g overnm en ta pp eal s t h at di sm i ssa l; S ta ln a k e ra n d C a s tle a p p e a l t h e irc o n v ic tio n s a n d C a s tle h e rs e n te n c e . W e af f i rm t h e convi ct i on s and sentence an d, as a resul t , do not reach t h e m eri t s of th e g o v e r n m e n t’s a p p e a l.

I
. A

. R i c hard Lucas or c hes t r at ed an e l a b ora t e m or t gage f r aud oper at i on t hat pur c has e d c he ap pr o pe r t y and , t hr o ugh v ar i o us a c t s o f f r aud , r e s o l d i ta ta hi ghe rpr i c e . H e f

i r s t bo ugh t i ne xp e ns i ve pi e c e s o f pr o pe r t y, o f t e n i n hi s ha l f

- br o t he r ’ s na m e . The n, s e ve r al l i c e ns e d a ppr ai s e r s , i nc l udi ng St al nak e r , pr o duc e d i nfla te d a p p r a is a ls o f th e p r o p e r tie s . O t he r m e m be r s o f t he c o ns pi r ac y r e c r ui t e d buy e r s , m o s t o f w ho m w ere fa ls e ly p r o m is e d th a t t h e p r o p e r tie s w e r e in v e s tm e n ts a n d th a t S ta ln a k e rw o u ld f i n d tenan t s, col l ect rent, an d use t h at m on ey t o pa y t h e m ort gag es. Th e bu yers w ere f u rt h er enti ced by “no m on ey dow n ” prom i ses or, i n som e cases , paid f or t he i rpa r t i c i pa t i o n. I f t he y di d no tha ve t he m e ans t o b uy t he pr o pe r t i e s ho n-N os . 07- 60247, 07- 60079

Th e in dict me nt canb e su mmari z eda s f ollo ws: 1 Count 1: Con spiracy to c ommit b ank frau d, wire frau d, an d

submission of false statements Count 2: Bank fraud Counts 3-11 : Wirefraud (eachcount alleges a separate dateonwhich the defendants u sed wire s for their sch eme) Count 12: Con spiracy to c ommit mo neylaund erin g Those exceptio ns are that(1) Stalnaker was not charge d withmon eylaund erin g; and 2 ( 2) a nd(3) thej uryfound him not guiltyontwo of th e ninewire frau d co unt sSS sp ecifically, counts 4 and 7. 3 e s t ly , s t il l m o r e m e m b e r s o f t h e c o n s p ir a c y w o u ldfor g e d o c u m e n t s (s u c h a s W -2 ’s
an d p aystubs) t h at w ou l d be u sed t o obtai n m ort gag e l oan s. C a stl e i s th e attorn ey w h o ha n d l ed th e cl osin gs on th e orig in a l p rop erty p u r c h a s e a n d th e in fla te d re s a le
. A t c lo s in g , th e m o r tg a g e co m p a n y w i red C a s tle t h e m on ey w i t h i n st ructi on s not to rel ease i tun t i lt h e dow n pay m en tha d been
r ec ei ved. Cast l e i gnor ed t he i nst r uct i ons and r el eas ed t he m oney i m m edi at el y; Lu c as t hen i m pro per l y us ed t he m oney t o m ake t he dow n paym ent , w hi c h enabl ed h i m t o enti ce buy ers w i t h a n o- m on ey- dow n prom i se. H e al so used som e of t he pr o f i t s f r o m t he s al e t o pa y buy e r s f o rt he i rpa r t i c i pa t i o n.
B
. L u ca s an d a d oz en o th ers w ere ch a rg ed in a tw elve-cou n t ind i ctm en t w i th ban k f rau d, w i re f

rau d, conspi racy t o com m i tm on ey l au n deri n g, an d consp i racy t o com m i tb an k f

rau d, w i re f

rau d, an d su bm i ssi on of fal se s t atem en t s. T en of 1 th e d e fe n d a n ts p le a d e d g u ilty , le a v in gL u c a s , S ta ln a k e r , a n d C a s tle to fa c e tr ia l. W i t h t hre e m os t l y i r r el evantexc ept i ons , the j ury f ound t hem gui l t y. Th e di s- 2 t r i c tc o ur t t he n di s m i s s e d, f o r l ac k o f

j ur i s di c t i o n, t he b ank f r aud c o unta nd t he b a n k f ra u d ob j ect of t h e con sp i ra cy cou n t.N os . 07- 60247, 07- 60079

Stalnaker raises th e i ssue threeti mes inseparatesections of his brief. I n the first, 3 he argues thatthe court erredin not granting his motion for j udgment of acquittal. Insections title d “The evidence at tri al was le gallyin suffici ent to support a c onviction of KennethStalnaker” and “Th e verdict at tri al was contrary to the evidence and stronglyagain st th e wei ght of th e evid ence ,”h e me re lyc ro ss- refe re nce s hise arlier argu me nt witha“ se e ab ove. ” 4 II. A

. St al nak e rc l ai m s t he r e i s i ns uf f i ci en te vi de nc e t o s upp o r ta c o nvi c t i o n. 3 Af t e rb r i e f

l y s t at i ng t he e l e m e nt s of the c r i m e a nd t he s t and ar d o f r e vi e w , he says, T h e is s u e fo ra p p e lla te re v ie w is w h e t h e rre a s o n a b le m in d s co u ld h a v e fo u n d e v id e n c e in c o n s is te n t w ith e v e r y re a s o n a b le h y p o th e s is o f in n o c e n c e . Uni t e d St at e s v . Es c o ba r , 6 7 4 F .2d 4 6 9 (5t h C ir. 1 9 8 7 ). T h e r e is n o h y p o th e s is th a t e v id e n c e s u p p o r ts th a t K e n n e th S ta lnak e rkne w o rw as a kno w i ng pa r t i ci pa nti n a ny ba nk f r aud sc hem e. D ef

endant S t al naker ’ s c onvi c t i on f orw i r e f

r aud shoul d be s e ta s i de a nd v ac at e d. St al nak e rdo e s no tdi s c us s t he fac t s o f t he ca s e , ci t e t he re c o r d o ra nyt hi ng o th e rth a n g e n e r a l s u ffic ie n c y -o f-t h e -e v id e n c e ca s e la w , o re x p l a i n h i s “ h y p o th e s is of i n n oce n ce.” W h ere a d efen d a n t asse rts “t h a t t h e ev i d en ce w a s i n su ff i ci en t t o convic thi m ” bu tfai l s “ t o m ak e any argu m ent w h ats oever t o s upp o r tt hi s c o nt e nt i o n, ” t he i s s ue i s c o ns i de r e d a ba ndo ne d. Uni t e d St at e s v . Be aum o nt , 972 F
. 2d 5 5 3 , 5 6 3 (5t h C ir. 1 9 9 2 ). Ther e i s e as i l y e no ugh e vi de nc e t hatSt al nak e rw as a n a c t i ve pa r t i c i pa nt i n t h e conspi racy. I n deed , h i s bri ef i n cl u des t ri al excerpts of a w i t n ess’ s t est i m ony t hat St al naker m ani pul at ed appra i sa l s t o m at c h Lu c as ’ s r eques t ed v al uat i on s.
B
. T h e g o v e r n me n tp r e s e n t e d wi t n e s s J a n e tC h a t ma n , wh o , o n d i r e c te x a mi n ati o n, e xp e r i e nc e d what app eared to be a pa n i c at t ack, w h i ch tw i ce i n t erruptedN os . 07- 60247, 07- 60079

Therear e o nlyn arro w exceptio ns tothis rule : “[A] defe ndant i s deprive d of his Sixth 4 Ame ndm ent ri ght of co nfr onta tio n whenthe fac ially incr im inati ng confe ss ion of a nont es tifying cod efen dantis introduce d atth eir jo int trial, evenif the jury is instructed to c onsi der the confe ssion only again st th e co defen dant .” Richardson , 481 U. S. at 207 (su mm arizi ng Bru to n v. United

States , 391 U.S. 123 (196 8)). The Court cr eate d th at exceptio n because “the re are some co ntexts inw hich the risk that the jury willnot, or cannot, follow instruction s is so great , and the conse que nces of failure so vital to the defen dant , that the practical and human limit ation s of the jury system cannot be ignore d.” Bru to n , 3 9 1 U .S

. at 1 3 5
. Thisi s noto n e of th os e situ ation s. “A new trial is required onlyw hen , after a revie w of the entire r ecord, it appears th at 5 ther e is a significant possibilitythat the prej udicialevide nce ha d a substantial i mpact on the jury ve rdict.” United States v. Valles , 48 4 F .3d 7 45, 756(5th Cir. 2 007). C hat man was on e of nin e mortga ge borrowers who describ ed her dealings with Lucas, and the district co urt characteriz ed h er t estimony as “cumul ative” and “essentiallyno different fro m nu merou s oth er wit

nesses that te stified .” Itis ther efore unlikely that her testimony had an impact on the ve rdict, a n d a nye rrorina dm ittin git wa s h arm le ss. 5 h er questi on i n g. A f t er t ak i n g a b re a k , sh e w as un able t o ret u rn. Th e court st ruck h er t est i m on y an d i n st ructed t h e j u ry t o di sregard i t
. Stal n ak er un success full y m ov ed f

or a m i stri a lon gro u n d s th a t his S i xth A m en d m e n t r ig h t t o cros s-exa m i n e w a s violated ; the cou rt de n i ed tha t requ est. “A l l eg ed viol a ti on s of t h e C on fron tati on C l a u se [of th e S i xth A m en d m en t]
ar e r e vi e w e d de no vo , bu t are su b j ect to h a rm l ess erro r an a l ys i s. ” Un i t ed S t ate s v . B ell , 367 F
. 3d 452 , 465 ( 5th C i r. 200 4)

. “ O rdi n ari l y, a w i t n ess i s c on si dered t o b e a w i t ne s s ‘ ag ai ns t ’ a de fe nda nt f o r pur po s e s o f t he Conf r o nt at i o n Cl aus e o nl y i f hi s t est i m on y i s pa rtof t h e body of

evi den ce t h at a j u ry m ay con si der i n asses sing h i s gu i l t. ” C ruz v. New Y ork , 481 U
. S

. 186 , 190 ( 198 7)

. T h i s f ol l ow s f rom t he “ al m o s ti nva r i ab l e a s s um pt i o n o f t he l aw t hatj ur o r s f

o l l o w t he i ri ns t r uc t i o ns

. . . . ” R i cha rdson v. Marsh , 4 8 1 U .S

. 2 0 0 , 2 0 6 (19 8 7 ). 4 B ecau se of

t h e court ’ s i n st ructi on , C h atm an ’ s str i cken test i m on y w as not pa r to f t he “bo dyo f

e vi de nc e ” t hatt he j ur y c o ul d c o ns i de r i n as s e s s i ng gui l ta nd t h u s cou l d n otb e the basi s f or a confr on t ati on v i ol ati on . A ccor di n gl y, t h e court d id n o t e r rin d e n y in ga m is tr ia l. 5N os . 07- 60247, 07- 60079

The gove rnment co rrectly points out that allof the cases Stalnakercites re gardin g the 6 needfor s evera nce fr oma “bad per so n co-d efe ndant” act ually addres s se vering m ulti plecharges a g ain st a n in dividu al de fe n dant. See United States v. McCarter , 31 6 F .3d 5 36, 538(5th Cir. 2 0 0 2 ); Uni ted States v. Singh , 26 1 F. 3 d 53 0 , 53 4(5thC ir
. 2 0 0 1 ); Un ited Statesv . Dan ie ls , 77 0 F .2 d 1 1 1 1 (D.C

. C ir
. 1 9 8 5); United States v. Jones , 16 F.3d4 8 7 , 4 9 3(2 d C ir
. 1 9 9 4). Th os e courts held thatwher e o ne chargeintroduces evi denceof a priorfelony(e.g ., a chargefor felon in possessionof a firear m), it should b e severed from othe r, unr elated charge s, because of th e “dan ge r th at the jury might co nvict, not base d on the evidence, b ut because it feels the defen

dantis a ‘bad person .’” Singh , 261 F.3 d at 534
. Those decisions thu s have nothing to do with “b a d pe rs onc o- de fe n dants .” 6 C

. St al nakerf

i l ed s eve r alunsucc es sf ulm ot i ons t o s eve r . H e c ont ends t hat he w as pr ej udi c e d byhavi ng t o g o t o t r i alw i t h a “ba d p e r s o n c o - de fe nda nt ” a nd
w a s “c o n v ic te d b y th e o v e r w h e lm in gs p illo v e rp r o o f o f g u ilt o f R ic h a r d L u c a s .” “W e rev i ew a g ra n t or de n i a lo f sev era n ce for ab u se o f d i scre ti on . ” Un i t ed S ta te s v. L ew is , 4 7 6 F .3 d 3 6 9 , 3 8 3 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 7 ). “As e v e r a n c e is re v e r s ib le
o nl y o n a s ho w i ng o f

sp e c i f i c co m pe l l i ng pr ej udi c e . Ther e i s a pr e fe r e nc e i n t he fe de r als ys t e m f

o rj o i ntt r i al s of

def e nda nt s w ho ar e i ndi c t e d t o ge t he r , ’pa r t i c ul a rl y in con sp i ra cy cas es.” I d. ( quot i ng Zafi ro v. Un i t ed S t ate s , 506 U
. S. 534, 537 (1 9 9 3 )) (in te rn a l citat ion om itted ). I n L ew is , i d. at 384 , w e hel d that a “ di st ri ctcou rtdi d n otabu se i t s di scr et i o n i n de nyi ng [ de fe nda nt s ’ ] m o t i o ns f o rs e ve r anc e ” i n whi c h t he y “ c o m pl ai n[ e d] broad l y of

t h e vol u m e of

evi den ce, t h e di spari t y of evi den ce bet w een defen da n t s, an d a gen eral i zed spi l l over ef fect , ” bu t“ [ n ] on e p oi n t [ ed] t o an y speci f i c prej u di ce r e s ul t i ng f

r o m t he i rc o m bi ne d t r i al
. ” St al nak e rr ai s e s i de nt i c ala r gum e nt s ; t he di s t r i c tc o ur tdi d no ta bus e i t s di s c r e t i o n. 6 M o r e o v e r , th e ju r y fo u n d S t a l n a k e rn o t g u ilty o n tw o co u n ts o n w h ic h it f o und hi s c o - de fe nda nt s g ui l t y. Tha ts ugg e s t s t hatt he j ur y di d no tb l i ndl y c o nvi ctStal n ak er on spi l l over evi den ce but i n st ead gave each d efen da n tan d each
c o unts e pa r at e c o ns i de r at i o n.N os . 07- 60247, 07- 60079

7 D
. S ta ln a k e ra lle g e s tha t t h e a b o v e e r r o r s cu m u la tiv e ly d e p r iv e d h im o f a fa ir t ri al
. B u t w h ere “ w e f i n d n o m eri tt o an y of [ t h e defen da n t ’ s] argu m en t s of err or, h i s cl a i m of cu m u l a ti ve erro r m u st also fa i l
. ” Un i t ed S t ate s v. Moye , 951 F. 2d 59, 6 3 n .7 (5 th C ir. 1 9 9 2 ).

III. A

. Cas t l e a ppe al s t he deni alof he rm o t i o n t o s upp r e s s . The fac t s a r e t hato ne o f t he buy e r s r e c r ui t e d i nt o Luc as ’ s s c he m e , Tyr o ni c a Ja m e s , de c i de d t o go t o t he pol i ce. Sh e gave D et ect i ve R u st y K eyes cop i es of h er cl osi n g pa pers, w h i ch w ere pre par ed byC as t l e a nd co nt ai ned an i nf l at ed appra i sa l and f r audul entf

i nanci al in fo r m a tio n (e .g ., r e p o r tin gth a t s h e e a r n e d $ 1 8 0 0 p e rm o n th w h e n s h e o n ly
e ar ne d $ 80 0)

. Fol l o w i ng up o n t hi s l e ad , K e ye s c o nt ac t e d a f o r m e rCount r ywi de of f i c e m a n a ge r, w ho r epo r t ed t hat s he had qui tdoi ng busi nes s w i t h t he Lucas group an d C astl e w h en she n ot i ced t h at t w o l oan s had t h e sam e ban k statem e nt s at t ac he d. K e ye s nex tsp o ke w i t h a C o unt r ywi de r e gi o nalm ana ge rw ho st ated t h at there w ere m an y del i n qu en tloans t h at s h e bel i eved w ere c on n ect ed to l oa n s f

rom the sam e g rou p i n vo l ve d i n the Ja m es inc i d en t. B ased on t h e i n f

orm ati on f

rom Jam es a nd t he t w o C ou n t ryw i de m an agers, K ey es receive d a w a rra n t to sea rch C a stl e’ s l a w off i ce for d ocu m en ts rel a ted to
c l o s i ngs pe r f

o r m e d f o r Luc as . Bef

o r e t r i al , Cas t l e uns uc c e s s f ul l y m o ve d t o s uppr e s s t he f

r ui t s o f t hats e ar c h.

“ W hen t he di st r i c tc our tden i es a m ot i on t o s uppres s, w e r evi ew fac t ual f i n d i n g s f

o r c l e a r e r r o r a n d c o n c l u s i o n s o f l a w de no vo . ” Uni t e d St at e s v . Pay ne , 3 4 1 F
. 3 d 3 9 3 , 3 9 9 ( 5 t h C i r . 2 0 0 3 )

. P r o b a b l e c a u s e q u e s t i o n s a r e e v a l u a t e d i n t wo st eps: “ F i rst w e determ i n e w h et h er t h e good-fai t h excepti on t o t h e excl u si on ary rul e . . . ap pl i es. If i t does, w e need not r each t h e qu est i on of probab l e cause f

orN os . 07- 60247, 07- 60079

8 t h e w arran tun l ess i tpresents a n ovelqu est i on of l aw , res ol u t i on of

w h i ch i s necess a ry to gu i d e futu re a cti on by law e n forcem en t of fi cers an d m a gistrates
. ” I d. (in te rn a l citat ion s a n d q u o ta tion m a rk s o m itted ).

U nde rt he g o o d- fai t h e xc e pt i o n, e vi de nc e o bt ai ne d d ur i ng t he e x e c u tio n o f a w a r r a n t la te rd e te r m in e d to b e d e fic ie n t is a d m is s ib le n on et h el ess, so l o n g as t h e executi n g of f i cers ’rel i an ce on t h e w arran tw as obj ect i vel y re a so n a bl e an d i n good fai t h
. . . . Th e good fai th ex cep ti on can n ot ap p l y if on e of f ou r ci rcu m stan ces is pre sen t: ( 1) I f t he i ss ui ng m agi st r at e/ j udge w as m i sl ed by i nf or m at i on i n an af f i davi tt hat t he af

f i ant knew w as fal se orw oul d have k n ow n except f or r eckl ess di sregard of t h e t ruth; ( 2) w h ere t h e i ssui n g m agis

t r at e / j udg e w ho l l y ab and o ne d hi s orherj udi c i alro l e ; ( 3) w he r e t he w a r r a n t i s b a s e d o n a n a ffid a v it s o la c k in gin in d ic ia o f p r o b a b le c aus e a s t o r e nde ro f f i c i alb e l i e f

i n i t s e xi s t e nc e e nt i r e l y unr e as o na b l e; a n d ( 4 ) w h ere th e w a rra n t is so fac i a l l y d efi ci en t i n fa i l i n g to par t i c ul ar i ze t he pl ac e t o b e s ear c hed ort he thi ngs t o be se i ze d t hat t he e xe c ut i ng o f

f i c e r s c anno tr e as o nab l y pr e s um e i tt o b e v al i d. I d. a t 3 9 9 -4 0 0 (i n te rn a l qu o ta tion m a rk s a n d cita tion s o m itted ). C astl e contends th a tt h e courterr ed i n not al l ow i n g h er t o i m pea ch J a m e s ’ s cr e d ib ilitydu ri n g th e h e a r in go n th e s u p p r e s s io n m o tio n . J a m e s ’ s cr e d ibi l i t y i s i r r e l e va nt , ho w e ve r . As t he c o ur tno t e d, “ w hati s r e l e va ntf o rt he s upp ressi on hear i ng i s w hat she t ol d t he of f i c er ” and “ any r eas on t hat he had to
c h a lle n g e h e rcr e d ib ility
. . . .” T h e c o u r t t h e r e fo r e co r r e c tly co n s id e r e d o n ly
w h et h er t h e of

f i cer w as ob j ect i vel y reasona bl e i n rel yi n g on Jam es’ s s t atem en t s; it d o e s n o t m a tt e r w h e th e r , u n b e k n o w n s t to th e o ffic e r , h e rs to r y w a s co m p le te ly fab r i c at e d. C a s tle a ls o a r g u e s th a t t h e w a r r a n t la c k e d s u ffic ie n t in d ic ia o f p r o b a b le
c aus e a nd r e l i ab i l i t y. But J am e s ’ s s t at e m e nt s w e r e c o r r o bo r at e d no to nl y byt he cl osi n g docu m en t s s h e provi ded

SS w h i ch w ere p repared b y C astl e an d contai n ed fal se i n f orm ati on SSb u t a ls o b y tw o C o u n tr y w id e m a n a g e r s , o n e o f w h o m s p e c ifical l y report ed su spi ci ou s m ort gag e a pp l i cat i on s f rom C astl e. K eyes w as t h erefo r e n o t e n tir e ly u n r e a s o n a b le in b e lie v in g th a t t h e w a r r a n t p r o v id e d p r o b a b leN os . 07- 60247, 07- 60079

9 cau se, an d the good fai t h excepti on app l i es.
B
. 1
. C astl e app eal s t h e suf f i ci en cy of

evi den ce f

or h er w i re f

rau d conv i ct i on s. W e r e vi e w t he c o nvi c t i o n de no vo and as k “ w he t he r a r e as o nab l e j ur y c o ul d c o nc l ude t hat t he r e l e va nt e vi de nc e , di r e c to rc i r c um s t ant i al , e s t ab l i s he d a l lo f t he
e s s e nt i ale l e m e nt s o f t he c r i m e b e yo nd a r e as o nab l e do ubtw he n v i e w e d i n t he l i gh t m ost fav ora b l e to th e v erd i ct. ” Un i t ed S t ate s v. L oe , 26 2 F
. 3 d 42 7 , 43 2 ( 5 th C ir. 2 0 0 1 ).

“ T o prove w i re f

rau d u n der 18 U
. S

. C

. § 134 3, the govern m en tm u stprove: (1 ) a s c h e m e to d e fr a u d a n d (2 ) th e u s e o f, o rca u s in gth e u s e o f, w ir e co m m u n ica ti on s i n f

u rth era n ce of the sch em e.” Un i t ed S t ate s v. I ngl es , 445 F. 3d 830, 838 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ) (c ita tio n a n d in te r n a l q u o ta tio n m a r k s o m i t te d ). W ir e fr a u d is
a s pe c i f i c - i nt e nt c r i m e r e qui r i ng pr o o f t hatt he “ de fe nda ntkne w t he s c he m e i nvo l ve d fa l se re p rese n ta tio n s , ” Un i t ed S t ate s v. N guyen , 50 4 F
. 3 d 56 1 , 56 8 ( 5 th C ir . 2 0 0 7 ), cer t
. den i ed , 1 28 S

. C t
. 1 324 (2008 ) , w h i ch rel ated t o m ater i ali n form a tio n , see Neder v. Un i t ed S t ate s , 5 2 7 U .S

. 1 , 2 5 (19 9 9 ). F u r th e r , “[o ]n c e m e m b e r s h ip in a s c h e m e to d e fr a u d is e s ta b l i s h e d , a k n o w in g p a r tic ip a n t is lia b le fo r a n y w ir e c o m m u n ic a tio n w h ic h s u b s e q u e n tly tak es p l a ce or w h i ch pr ev i ou sly took p l a ce i n con n ection w i th the sch em e.” Un ited S ta tes v . D u la , 989 F. 2d 772, 778 ( 5t h C i r . 1993)

. An d bec ause C as t l e w as c harge d as an ai deran d abe t t orof w i r e f r aud, t he go ver nm entnee d onl y e st abl i sh that she “ assi st ed t h e act u al perpetrat or of t h e w i re f rau d cri m es w h i l e shari n g th e req u i sit e crim i n a li n ten t. ” Uni t e d St at e s v . Ri v era , 2 9 5 F
. 3 d 461, 466 ( 5t h Ci r . 20 02 )

. Cas t l e a r gue s t hat( 1) t he g o ve r nm e ntdi d no tpr e s e nts uf f i c i e nt
e vi de nc e t hata w i r e w as us e d; ( 2) t he r e w as no pr o o f o f sp eci f i c i nt e nt ; a nd ( 3) t h e fal se docum en t s C astl e si gn ed w ere i m m ater i alor n otin furt h eran ce ofN os . 07- 60247, 07- 60079

10 t he s c he m e , b e c aus e t he y w e r e no tus e d f o ra ppr o vi ng o rde nyi ng t he l o an.

2
. I n r e ga r d t o t he f

i r s tpoi nt , C as t l e ’ s pr i m ar y c o m pl ai nti s t hatt he g o ve r nm e ntdi d no tpr o duc e r e c o r ds o f s pe c i f i c w i r e t r ans m i s s i o ns . But , a s t he g o ve r nm en tp oi n t s ou t , t h e “ w i re- t ran sm i ssi on requi rem en tm ay be establ i shed by ci rcu m stan ti a lev i d en ce, su ch as cu stom a ry bu sine ss p ra cti ces.” Uni t e d St at e s v. Mo o dy , 903 F
. 2d 321 , 332 ( 5t h C i r . 1 99 0)

. The g o ve r nm e ntpr e s e nt e d t e s t i m o ny f rom m u l t i pl e C ou n t ryw i de em pl oyees a bou tit s c u st om ary bu si n ess practi ce of
u si n g a w i re s yst em call ed E D G E to p roces s m ort gag e loan tr an sact i on s, a syst e m t hatCount r ywi de b e ga n us i ng atl e as tt hr e e y e ar s b e f o r e de fe nda nt s ’c o nd u ct. N ext, t h ere w as substan t i alci rcum st an t i alevi den ce f rom w h i ch a j u ry c oul d c onc l ude thatC as t l e po ss es se d t he r equi si t e i nt ent
. Fi r st , att he c l os i ng, she vi ol at ed i nst r uct i ons f r om t he l endi ng c om pany t hat she “ not c l os e t he l oan o rdi s bur s e t he f

unds ” unt i lr e c e i vi ng t he do w n pa ym e nt f r o m t he bo r r o w e r . I ns t e ad , s he di s bur s e d t he f unds i m m e di at e l y, t he n L uc as use d t he m t o m ak e t he dow n pay m en t
. Secon d, she h an dl ed the cl osi n gs on the i n i t i al h ou se pu rchases
a n d th e s u b s e q u e n t s a le s , so s h e k n e w t h a t th e la tt e rp r ic e s w e r e s u b s ta n tia lly i n f l ated

SS t h e governm en tpoi n t s t o t w o exam pl es i n w h i ch the hom e val u es do ubl e d i n a day
. Bot h ar e ci r c um s t ant i alev i de nc e of C as t l e ’ s i nt e ntt o de f r aud C ou n t ryw i de. F i n al l y, i n res pon se t o C astl e’ s argu m en tt h at her part i ci pa t i on w as ei t h er i m m ater i alor n oti n f u rt h eran ce of

t h e sc h em e, t h e governm en texpl ai n s: Thatt he f

i nal [ do c um e nt s ] w e r e s i gne d a f t e rt he r e c e i pto f

t he f unds m a k e s n o d i ff

ere n ce. C a stl e’ s off i ce fax ed dr a ft[ d ocu m en ts] to C ou n t ryw i de befor e [ each ] of the cl osi n gs f

or app roval
. . . . B y fal sel y c e r t i f yi ng s he ha d r e c e i ve d t he do w n pa ym e nt s , Cas t l e he l pe d Lucas c om pl et e t h e f

rau d. B y conti n u i n g t o h an dl e L u cas’ s l oan cl os-N os . 07- 60247, 07- 60079

The money -launderingstatute imposes crimin al penaltie s onanyonew ho, “knowin g 7 that th e propertyinvo lved in a financialtransactionrepresents the procee ds of some fo rm of unl awful activity, conducts orattempts to conduct sucha fin ancialtransactionwhich in fact involves th e procee ds of specifi ed unlawful activity with the inte nt to promote the carrying on of sp ecif ie d u nlawful a ctivity. . . . ” 1 8U .S .C

. § 1 9 5 6 (a)( 1 )( A )(i)

. 11 i ngs de s pi t e b e i ng awar e o f t he i nf l at e d va l ue s of

t he pr o pe r t i e s a nd t he t r ue so urc e of t he dow n paym ent s, C as t l e pl ayed an i nt egr al pa r ti n pe r pe t r at i ng t he f r aud
. I n shor t , vi ew ed i n t he l i ght m os tfavor abl e t o t he ve r di c t , t her e w as m ore tha n su ff

i ci en t ci rcu m stan ti a lev i d en ce to su p p ort th e v erd i ct.
C

. C as t l e a ver s t hat t he ve r di c tr es t s on i nsuf f i c i entl egaltheo r i es . Th e g ove r nm e nt c har ge d Cas t l e w i t h c o ns pi r ac y t o c o m m i t m o ne y l aund e r i ng, a l l e gi ng t hatt he pr o c e e ds f

r o m t he c o ns pi r ac y t o c o m m i tb ank f r aud , w i r e f

r aud , a nd fal s e s t at e m e nt s i n a l o an ap pl i c at i o n ( al l al l e ge d i n c o unt1 ) w e r e us e d t o c o nd u ct fin a n cia l tra n sa ctio n s w ith in te n t to p ro m o te fu rth e r u n la w fu l activi t y. A f- 7 t e r t h e g u i l t y v e r d i c t , t h e c o u r t e n t e r e d a j u d g m e n t o f a c q u i t t a l f o r t h e b ank f r aud

- r e l at e d c har ge s , b e c aus e i t be l i e ve d i tl ac ke d j ur i s di c t i o n o ve rt he m . The
c o ur ta l s o di s m i s s e d t h e fal se- st atem en t s- i n - a- l oan - ap pl i cat i on charge as t o C ast l e b y de t e r m i ni ng t hatt he r e w as no e vi de nc e t hats he pa r t i c i pa t e d i n pr e pa r i ng loa n a p p li ca tion s (h e r r o le w a s h a n d li n gclos in gd o cu m e n ts). W i t h t w o o f

t he t hr e e o bj e c t s o f

t he m o ne y l aund e r i ng s c he m e di s m i s s e d, Cas t l e a r gue s t hatt he c o ur te r re d i n no tg r ant i ng he rm o t i o n t o di s m i s s t he
m o n e y -lau n d e rin gch a rg e . S h e r e a so n s th a t b e ca u se th e v e rd ict d id n o t sp e cify

“ w hi c h al l e ge d ba s i s t he j ur y f o und t he s e a l l e ge d p r o c e e ds c am e f r o m [] (i
. e . [ , ] t he di sm i ssed or n otdi sm i ssed parts thereof ) , ” itis p ossibl e t h at t h e j u ry convi ct ed on an i nval i d l egalt heor y. C astl e i s c orrec tt h at h e r co n vi ct i on shou l d be d i sm i ssed i f t h e verdi ctN os . 07- 60247, 07- 60079

12 m ig h t h a v e b e e n b a s e d o n a n in s u ffic ie n t le g a l th e o r y .

I n Y ate s v. Un i t ed S t ate s , 3 54 U
. S. 2 98 , 31 2
. . . ( 19 57 ) , t he Suprem e Cour t he l d t hat w he r e a j ur y r e t ur ns a ge ne r al ve r di ct of g u ilt t h a t m ig h t r e s t o n m u ltip le le g a l t h e o r ie s , a t le a s t o n e in s u ffici en ti n l aw an d the ot h ers suff i ci en t , the verdi ctm u stb e setasi de. In such a si t u ati on , w e cann ott rust t h e j u ry t o ha ve chosen t h e l egall y suff

i ci en tt h eory an d to h ave i gn ored t h e i n suff i ci en tone, beca us e “ [j ] ur o r s ar e no t ge ne r al l y e qui ppe d t o de t e r m i ne w het h er a p a rti cu l a r the ory of con victi on su b m itted to t h em i s con trary to l a w . ” G rif

f i n v. Un i t ed S t ate s , 5 0 2 U .S

. 4 6 , 5 9
. . . (19 9 1 ). Uni t e d St at e s v . Ski l l i ng , 554 F. 3d 529, 542- 43 ( 5t h C i r . 2009) ( al t er at i on i n or i gin a l), pet i t i on f

or c ert
. f

i l ed(M a y 1 1 , 2 0 0 9 ) ( N o . 0 8 -1 3 9 4 ). T h e re is, h o w e v e r, n o risk th a t C a stle ’ s c o n v iction m igh t re st o n a n in su ff i ci en tl egal t h eory. A l l t h e proceeds u sed i n t h e al l eged m on ey l au n deri n g w ere deri ved f

rom t h e m ort gag e transacti on s, a n d each of t h ose t ran sact i on s i n cl u ded both the di sm i ssed charges (ban k f rau d and fal se st atem en t s) an d the n ot
- di sm i ssed charge ( w i re f rau d). In ot h er w ords, a l lthe p roceeds w ere deri ved f rom w i r e f r aud

SS t h ere w as non e f rom ban k f

rau d or fal se s t atem en t s al on e. Fur t he r , t he j ur y f

o und t hatCas t l e pa r t i ci pa t e d i n t he w i r e f r aud
. The
s pe c i alv e r di c to n t he c o ns pi r ac y c o untf o und he rg ui l t y o f

a l lt hr e e o bj e c t s o f

t he
c o ns pi r ac y (ba nk f

r aud , w i r e f

r aud , an d fal se s t at e m e nt s ) , a nd s he w as f o und gu i l t y on al lni n e i n di vi du al c o u n ts of w i re f rau d. B ecau se t h e verdi ctm ak es pl ai n t hat t he j ury bel i eve d C as t l e c om m i t t ed w i r e f r aud, i ti s notpos sibl e t hat t he m o ne y- l aund e r i ng c o nvi c t i o n r e s t s o n pr o c e e ds o nl y f r o m t he di s m i s s e d b ank f rau d or fal se s t atem en t s t h eori es. S t ated an ot h er w ay, t h e verdi cti n di cat es t h at ( 1) t h e conspir acy u sed proceeds f rom t h e m ort gag e t ran sact i on s t o prom ot e f u rt h er m ort gage t ran sact i on s, and ( 2) a l lo f

t ho s e m o r t ga ge t r ans ac t i o ns co nt ai ne d w i r e f r aud
. Ther e i s t hus
no do ubtt hatt he j ur y f o und Cas t l e w as a m e m be ro f a c o ns pi r ac y t hatus e d t he p roce ed s from w i re frau d to pro m ote fu rth er w i re frau d an d , the refore , com m i t-N os . 07- 60247, 07- 60079

Un der the money -launderingstatute, wire fr aud is a define d “specified unl awful”ac 8 tivity . 1 8U .S .C

. § 1 9 5 6 (c)( 7) (inco rp or ating all unlawf ul a ct s lis te d in1 8U .S .C

. § 1 9 6 1 (1 ), whichinclu de s wir e fr au d)

. 13 t ed m oney l aunderi ng. 8

D
. C astl e con t est s the den i alof a conti n u an ce. B ef

ore t ri al , she sub st i t u t ed
n ew coun sel
. T h ree d ays l ater , h er new coun selm oved f or a c on t i n u an ce, w h i ch
w as de ni e d t w o da ys a f t e r t hat
. The c o ur t , ho w e ve r , e xt e nde d t he m o t i o ns de ad

l i n e severalw eeks, an d tr i aldi d n otbegi n un t i lm ore t h an si x w eeks l ater
.
“ T ri alj u dg es hav e broad di scr et i on in d eci di n g requ est s f or c on t i n u an ces, a n d w e r e v ie w o n ly fo ra n a b u s e o f th a t d is c r e tio n re s u ltin gin s e r io u s p r eju d ic e .” Uni t e d St at e s v . G e r m an , 4 8 6 F .3 d 8 4 9 , 8 5 4 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 7 ). In revi ew i n g t h e den i alof a conti n u an ce, t h i s c ou rtl ooks to t h e t ot al i t y o f t he c i r c um st ance s, i ncl udi ng ( a) t h e am ou n tof

t i m e avail able; (b) t he de fe nda nt ’ s r o l e i n s ho r t e ni ng t he t i m e ne e de d; (c ) th e lik e lih o o d o f p r eju d ic e fr o m d e n ia l; ( d) t he a va i l ab i l i t y o f di s c o ve r y f

r o m t he pr o s e c ut i o n; ( e) t h e com pl exi t y of t h e case; (f) t h e a d e q u a c y o f th e d e fe n s e a c tu a lly p r o v id e d a t t r ia l; and ( g) t he e xp e r i e nc e o f t he a t t o r ne y w i t h t he a c c us e d. Un i t ed S t ate s v. W

alt ers , 351 F
. 3d 159 , 170 ( 5th C ir
. 200 3) (i n t erna lqu ot ati on m arks an d ci t ati on s om i t t ed). “I f the ch al l en ged deci si on i s nei t h er arbi t rary nor u n reasona bl e, w e m u st u ph ol d the t ri alcourt ’ s deci si on t o den y t h e conti n u an ce, ev en w h en w e con sider the d ecisi on to be a h a rsh on e.” Un i t ed S t ate s v. H ugh ey , 1 4 7 F .3d 4 2 3 , 4 3 1 (5t h C ir. 1 9 9 8 ). A l t hough she poi nt s t o no spe c i f i c prej udi c e, C as t l e g ener al l y ar gues t hat

“ t hi s w as a c o m pl e x, m as s i ve do c um e nti nt e ns e c as e t hatr e qui r e d nu m e r o us h ou rs of p reparati on , revi ew an d research. ” U n der even m ore di re c i rcum st an c-N os . 07- 60247, 07- 60079

For exa mple, without citing eitherth e re cord or l aw, C astlestat es merelyth at “[t]he 9 court below used a ‘blind strike’ metho d of jury selection , ther eby depriving your appellant of beingab le to exe rcise allof her limit ed pe remptorystrikes.” Two other one -sente nce arguments cont aincitations, butth e cited c ases h ave no relevanc e toth e appeal
.

See F ED . R. APP . P
. 2 8 (a)( 9)( A ); L & A C

ont ract ing

C o. v. S. Con crete Servs. , 17F .3d 10 1 0 6 , 1 1 3( 5 thC ir
. 1 9 9 4) (waiverf orf ailin g toc it e authority); United States v. Beau mont , 97 2 F .2 d 5 5 3 , 5 6 3( 5 thC ir
. 1 9 9 2 ) (f ailuret o argu e a de qu ate ly).

14 e s , ho w e ve r , w he r e c o uns e lw as g i ve n o nl y t e n da ys t o pr e pa r e i n a c as e t hati nv o l v e d “ t e n d e fe n d a n t s , e v e n mo r e wi t n e s s e s , a n d v o l u mi n o u s d i s c o v e r y , ” we f ou n d that den i alof a requ estf or c on t i n u an ce w as not an a bu se of di scr et i on , bec ause “ t her e [ w as ] no evi denc e t hat [ t he def endant ] w as s er i ous l y pr ej udi c ed by th e d en i a lof h i s req u est for a con ti n u a n ce.” Un it e d S ta tes v. L ew is , 476 F. 3d 3 6 9 , 3 8 7 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 7 ). W e a ls o n o te d th e e ffe c tiv e n e s s o f tr ia l co u n s e l. I d. (“[ D e fe n d a n t]’s a tt o r n e y e ffe c t i v e ly ch a lle n g e d th e w itn e s s e s . . . , m a d e in te lligen targu m en t s i n hi s open i n g an d c l osi n g st atem en t s . . . , an d ben ef i t t ed f rom th e a rg u m e n ts o f oth e r d e fen se co u n se l .
. . . ”). As i n L ew is , t he r e i s no ev i de nc e t hatC as t l e w as se r i o us l y pr ej udi c e d, a nd he rc o uns e ldi d a n a de qua t e j o b att r i al
. Thi s i s i nde e d a c o m pl i c at e d c as e , b ut t he c o ur ts ho w e d r e as o nab l e ne s s a nd f l e xibi l i t y byadj us t i ng t he m o t i o ns de ad

l i n e; coun selha d several w eeks t o prepa re; C astl e ben ef i t ed f rom ha vi n g t w o codef endant s eac h re pre se nt ed byhi s ow n c ounse l ; t he go ver nm entc oo per at ed by provi di n g organ i zed dis covery bi n ders; an d C astl e’ s c ou n seli s a seasoned a t t orn ey. Th ere i s no i n di cat i on of substanti alprej u di ce.

E
. C astl e al l eges t h at cum u l ati ve error at t ri alvi ol ated her ri gh tt o du e proc es s. Al t hough she des c r i bes a l aundry l i stof gr i evanc es , s he doe s notf ul l y e xp l a i n t h e m a n d o f

t e n d o e s n o tc i t e t h e r e c o r d o rr e l e v a n tl a w. A s a resul t , m ost 9 of t he m at t er s ar e w ai ved f ori nadequat e b r i ef

i ng. 10N os . 07- 60247, 07- 60079

C astledoe s no t cite to the record but quote s the prosecuto r as havingsai d th at “now 11 sh e wa ntsto turnab lin d eye a n d saysh e’ s notinvolved , sh e do es n ’tknow. . . an d furth er , . . . so if something

come s up, she cansay , well , I d id n’ ts ig n this
. . . she knew somethin g was wrong .” Th at quo tation is stitch ed to ge therfrom disparate c omments made acro ss eight pages of closin g argument transcript. To prove pl ainerror, Castl e must “show (1) therew as error, (2) the errorwas pl ain , 12 (3) th e erro r aff

ecte d [h er] ‘s ub st a nti al rights ,’an d (4) th e e rrorseriou slyaff ecte d ‘th e fairn es s, inte grity or public reput atio n of j udicialpro ceeding s.’” United States v. Jones , 48 9 F .3d 6 79, 681 (5t h Cir. 2007) (quot ing United States v. Olano , 5 0 7U .S

. 7 2 5 , 7 3 2 , 7 3 4( 1 9 9 3))

.

See, e.g. , Bri dge v. Lynaugh , 83 8 F .2d 7 70, 774n .1 (5 th Cir. 1 988) (“[T]he prosecutor’s 13 argument was that the evidence p resented b y the state was sufficient toovercomedefe ndant’s pr es ump tio n o f innoc ence , but thatin ord er to convic t def enda nt, the governm ent w ouldhave to prove all the ne cessaryelement s beyon d area sonabledoubt. The prosecutor merelyar gu ed th at th e govern me nt h a d carrie d th at b urd en .”). 15 Cas t l e g i ve s s o m e a t t e nt i o n t o he r al l e ga t i o n t hat i n c l o s i ng ar gum e ntt he pr o s e c ut i o n m ad e “ an i ndi r e c tc o m m e nto n a ppe l l ant s [ s i c ] F i f t h Am e ndm e nt ri gh ts”, i m p rop erly a ttem p ted to i n fer gu i l ty k n ow l ed ge or i n ten t, arg u ed m a t-

11 t ers n o t in evi den ce, an d m ad e i n corr ectst atem en t s abou tt h e presum pti on of in n o c e n c e . N o n e o f th o s e ju s tifie s re v e r s a l. Fi r s t , t he g o ve rnm e nte xp l ai ns t hatt he pr o s e c ut o rw as no tc o m m e nt i ng on de fen d a n t’s c h o i ce to rem a i n si l en t w h en the h e sta ted tha t “ [defen d a n t]
w an t s you to t u rn thi s bl i n d eye an d say sh e’ s n ot i n vol ved ” ; i n st ead , h e w as respon di n g t o C astl e’ s argu m e n t t h at s h e coul d n otbe held r espon sibl e, becau se i t w as h er secr et ary w h o si gn ed the cl osi n g pa pers. Secon d, C astl e di d n otobj ect t o t h e al l eged i n ferences of kn ow l edg e or i n t en t ; w e t h eref ore r evi ew onl y f

or pl ai n er r or , an d she has notbo r ne t hat bur den. Thi r d, t he c our tdi d s ust ai n an

12
o bj e c t i o n a s t o t he pr o s e c ut o r ’ s s t at e m e nto n m at t e r s no ti n e vi de nc e . Fo ur t h, th e g o v e r n m e n t’s co m m e n ts a b o u t th e p r e s u m p tio n o f in n o c e n c e w e r e m e r e ly st at em ent s t hat i t had m et i t s burde n of pro of, a t ype of c l os i ng ar gum entt hat
w e ha ve a ppr o ve d. 13N os . 07- 60247, 07- 60079

Thatincrea se i s pur suant to§ 14 2S1 .1(a)(2 ), whichin structs the court toincrea se th e offen se l evel base d ona tab le foun d in§

- 2B 1.1. 16 F
. C astl e r a ise s f

ou r al l eged sentenci n g error s. “ [ W ] e revi ew t h e di st ri ct court’ s i n t erpret ati on an d ap pl i cat i on of t h e [ S en t en ci n g] G u i del i n es de nov o. W e w ill a c c e p t fin d in g s o f fa c t m a d e in c o n n e c tio n w ith s e n te n c in gu n le s s cle a r ly
erro n eo u s. ” Un itedS ta tes v. A rm en d a riz , 4 51 F. 3d 3 52 , 3 57 ( 5t h Ci r . 2 00 6) (i nte rn a l citat ion om itted ).

1
. C astl e al l eges t h at t h e di st ri ctcourti m prope rly s en t en ced her u n der U
. S. S. G

. § 2S1

. 1 ( m o ne y l aund e r i ng) i ns t e ad o f § 2 B1. 1 ( f r aud a nd d e c e i t )

. The
c o ur t , ho w ever, cor rect l y f ol l ow ed § 3D 1. 2, w h i ch i n st ructs t h at“ c o unt s i nvo lvi ng s u b s ta n tia lly th e s a m e h a r m s h a ll b e g r o u p e d to g e th e rin to a s in g le G r o u p .” T h e di st rictcourtw as requir ed to “ group ” t ogether [ defenda n t ’ s] f rau d an d m on ey l au n deri n g of f en ses becau se t h ose c ri m es i n vol ved t he s am e v i c t i m and i nvol ved m ul t i pl e a c t s t hat w ere li nked by a com m on i l l egal obj ect i ve or partof a com m on s ch em e. O n ce gr o upe d, t he di s t r i c tc o ur tpr o pe r l y de t e r m i ne d t h at m o ne y l aunde r i ng pr o duc e d t he hi ghe r o f fe ns e l e ve la nd p r o pe r l y i m po s e d s e nt enc e undert hat gui del i ne, § 2S1. 1. Un i t ed S t ate s v. Pow ers , 1 6 8 F .3d 7 4 1 , 7 5 3 (5t h C ir. 1 9 9 9 ) ( cita tion om itted ).

2
. C astl e c o n t en ds t h at t h e courti m properl y cal cul ated C ou n t ryw i de’ s l osses t o deter m i n e w h et h er an of fen se- l eveli n crease ap pl i ed. S peci f i cal l y, t h e court
e xa m i ne d Co unt r ywi de ’ s b us i ne s s r e c o r ds

SS adm i t t ed as ev i denc e dur i ng t r i al
a n d s u m m a ri ze d in the pr ese n ten ce re p ort ( “P S R ”)

SS t hat sho w ed a $1, 450, 388 l o s s ; t he c o ur ta ppl i e d a s i xt e e n- l e ve l i nc r e as e f o rl o s s e s i n e xc e s s o f

$ 1 m i l l i o n. 1 4N os . 07- 60247, 07- 60079

U.S.S.G. § 3B1.3cmt. n.4 (“‘Specialsk ill’ refers to a skill not possessed b y members 15 of th e gen er al pub lic a n d u su allyrequirin gsub st a nti al e ducation , tr ainin go r lice n sin g . E x a mpl eswo uldinclu de
. . . l awyer s . . . . ”)

. 17 “A[ P S R ] gen eral l y bears suf f i ci en ti n di ci a of

rel ia b il i t y t o be consi dered
as ev i denc e b y t he t r i alj udge i n m aki ng t he fac t ualdet er m i nat i ons r equi r ed by t he s e nt e nc i ng gui de l i ne s . A di s t r i c tco ur tm ayado ptfac t s c o nt ai ne d i n t he PSR
w i t ho utf

ur t he ri nqui r y i f

t he fac t s ha ve a n a de qua t e e vi de nt i ar y ba s i s and t he d efen d a n t d oe s n ot p rese n t reb u ttalev i d en ce.” Un i t ed S t ate s v. A lf ord , 142 F. 3d 8 2 5 , 8 3 1 -3 2 (5t h C ir. 1 9 9 8 ) (in te rn a l citat ion s a n d q u o ta tion m a rk s o m itted ). C astl e says t h at t h e courterr ed i n rel yi n g on t h e P S R an d sh ou l d h ave req u ir e d “C o u r t r e c o r d s s h o w in ga c tu a l ‘ s a le s ’fo re a c h a n d e v e r y p r o p e r ty
. . . .” B u tC ou n t ryw i de’ s busi n ess recor d d ocum en t ati on w as an adeq u ate evi den t i ary basi s, an d C astl e h as n ot carri ed her bu rden “ of show i n g t h at t h e in form ati on i n th e P S R reli ed on b y t h e dist ri ct cou rt i s m a terial l y u n tru e.” Id
. at832 ( c i t at i o n a nd i nt e r nalq uo t at i o n m ar ks o m i t t e d)

. Cas t l e a l s o c l ai m s t hatt he c o ur ti ncorr ect l y “ ‘ i gn ored’w h at m on ey [ C ou n t ryw i de] received f rom t h e f

orecl osure a n d /o rs a le s ” o f th e fr a u d u le n tly p u r c h a s e d h o m e s , b u t th o s e fig u r e s w e r e e x p lic i t l y c a l c u l a t e d i n t h e P S R.

3
. C as tl e avers t h at t h e courterr ed i n app l yi n g an enh an cem en tf or use of
a “ s pe c i als ki l l
. ” She a r gue s t hatno s pe c i als ki l lw as use d, a nd, i n a ny c as e , s he di d n ot“ si gn i f

i can t l y faci l i t ate[] t h e com m i ssi on or conceal m en tof t h e of fen se”
a s re q u ir e d b y th e s e n te n c in gg u id e lin e s . S ee U
. S. S. G

. § 3B 1. 3. Th e g ui del i ne c om m ent ar y, how eve r , s pec i f i c al l y m ent i ons l aw yer s as an e x a m p le o f th o s e p o s s e s s in ga s p e c ia l s k ill. I n t he a ut ho r i t y Cas t l e r e l i e s o n, 15 Un i t ed S t ate s v. Hem m i ngson , 1 5 7 F .3 d 3 4 7 , 3 5 9 -6 0 (5 th C ir . 1 9 9 8 ), th e s p e c ia l-N os . 07- 60247, 07- 60079

Spe cific ally, at oralar gu ment the gove rnment’s attorn eystate d , “If th e co urt were 16 to oth erwi sef

in d th e de fe n dantsapp ro priate lyguiltyan d co nvicte d of th e oth erc ounts , we would not be asking

th e co urt to r each the bank frau d issue.” He explained that a ddressin g the issue would be unnecessary, because it would not affect the defen dant s’ sentenc es b eyond a potential$1 00 special a ssessment. 18 ski l lenhance m entdi d notappl y, be c ause t he def endant , al t hough a l aw yer , had
no tpe r f o r m e d a ny l e ga ls e r vi c e s . B y c o m pa r i s o n, C as t l e ac t e d as a l awye ra nd
r e n d e r e d le g a l s e r v ic e s in p e r fo r m in gth e m o r t g a g e c lo s in g . T h e d is t r ic tc o u r t ’s
c o nc l us i o n t hati tw as “ o bv i o us t o m e a nd t o e ve r yo ne e l s e t hat ’ s b e e n a r o und t he realest ate pract i ce t h at t h ere i s a speci alski l l ” w as t h eref ore not erroneou s.

4
. Cas t l e c l ai m s a di s pa r i t y be t w e e n he rs e nt e nc e a nd t h ose of he rc o - c o ns pi r at o r s . But “ a di s pa r i t y o f s e nt e nc e s a m o ng c o - de fe nda nt s do e s no t , w i t ho ut
m o r e , co n s tit u te a n a b u s e o f d is c r e tio n . T h e d e fe n d a n ts ca n n o t r e ly u p o n th e ir co-d efen d a n ts’ sen ten ces a s a y a rd sti ck f or th eir ow n . ” Uni t e d St at e s v . D e v i ne , 9 3 4 F .2d 1 3 2 5 , 1 3 3 8 (5t h C ir. 1 9 9 1 ) (in te rn a l citat ion s o m itted ).

I V. At o r ala r gum e nt , t he g o ve r nm e nti ndi c at e d t hati tw o ul d ab and o n i t s a ppealof t he di sm i ss alof

t he bank f

r aud- r el a ted ch a rges i f C as t l e’ s and Sta l naker’ s ot h er c on vi ct i on s w ere u ph el d. H aving f ou n d no errori n regard t o t h ose 16 convic t i on s orsentences, w e t h eref ore do not r each t h e ban k f rau d i ssue. AF F I RMED.