1 RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b) File Name: 16a0091p.06 

### UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

_________________

U

NITED S TATES OF A MERICA , Plaintiff-Appellee ,

v

.

A

NGELIQUE B ANKSTON , Defendant-Appellant

. ┐ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ ┘ No. 14-3723

Appeal from the United St ates District Court for the Northern District of Ohio at Cleveland. No. 1:13-cr-00166-1—David D. Dowd, Jr., District Judge. Argued: December 9, 2015 Decided and Filed: April 14, 2016
Before: STRANCH, DONALD, and LIPEZ, * Circuit Judges.

_________________ COUNSEL

ARGUED: Nadia Wood, OFFICE OF THE FEDE RAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Columbus, Ohio, for Appellant. Mark S. Bennett, UNI TED STATES ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Cleveland, Ohio, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Nadia Wood, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Columbus, Ohio, for Appellant . Mark S. Bennett, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Clevel and, Ohio, for Appellee.

* The Honorable Kermit V. Lipez, Circuit Judge for the Un ited States Court of App eals for the First Circuit, sitting by designation. 

### >No. 14-3723 United States v. Bankston Page 2

_________________ OPINION

_________________ LIPEZ, Circuit Judge. Asserting that her tr ial on twenty-three fraud-related charges was flawed by numerous errors, Defendant-Appellant Ange lique Bankston asks us to vacate all of her
convictions and remand for a new tr ial. In particular, she argues that (1) her waiver of counsel was invalid, (2) she was improperly charged in c ount 23 with making false statements to a judge in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001, (3) the trial proceedings were procedurally deficient due to judicial bias, prosecutorial mi sconduct, and ineffective assist ance of counsel, and (4) the evidence was insufficient to support her convic tions for wire and ma il fraud. She further contends that, even if we reje ct her claims of trial error, she is entitled to resentencing.
Having carefully considered her claims, we conc lude that only her claims of error as to
the count 23 conviction and sentenci ng have merit. Therefore, we VACATE Bankston’s conviction on count 23 of making false stat ements in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001, AFFIRM her convictions on all other counts, and REMAND the case for resentencing.

I.
On August 28, 2013, Bankston was charged in a twenty-three-count Second Superseding Indictment with committing wire fraud, mail fraud, bank fraud, m oney laundering, identity theft,
and a false statement offense in connection with three separate fr audulent schemes that occurred
between March 2011 and June 2012. Unlike the previous indictments, this superseding indictment (and the final and operative Third Superseding Indictment) included count 23, which charged Bankston with making false statements in ma tters within the jurisdiction of the judiciary, based on a letter she wrote to the district judge accusing the government of planting evidence in
her home.
Although Bankston asks that we vacate her convi ctions on every count, the fraudulent activity pertinent to her claims on appeal concerns primaril y one of the three fraudulent schemes—the so-called “Citizens Bank and Lending Club Scheme.” Hence, we limit our recitation of the facts to that particular scheme and provide additional details as necessary in ourNo. 14-3723 United States v. Bankston Page 3

analysis. Similarly, we briefly sketch out the pr ocedural background in this section, reserving a more complete account of the trial proceedi ngs until our discussion of Bankston's claims.

All of Bankston’s fraudulent schemes followe d one fundamental pattern. She unlawfully obtained the personal identif ication information of individuals and used it to defraud commercial banks and the state and federal government. In the Citizens Bank and Lending Club Scheme, she instructed her co-conspirator, Jocelyn Hale, to open an account at Citizens Bank in the name of Rachelle Butler—whose personal identifiers Bankston had illegally obtained—at the bank’s branch office in Erie, Pennsylvania. When opening the account, Hale al so opened a Citizens
Bank credit card in Butler’s name. Bankston th en deposited funds in Butler’s Citizens Bank account, which she acquired in part from a fraudulent Lending Club lo an application that she had filled out online using Butler's identifiers. Bankston then instructed Hale to withdraw a portion
of these funds in the form of two cashier checks. Bankston and Hale failed to cash those checks, however, and a dispute arose shortly thereafter ov er Bankston’s refusal to pay Hale as promised.
On September 5, 2012, Postal Inspector L.E. Macek searched Bankston’s home pursuant
to a warrant. While the search uncovered cert ain evidence of Bankston’s fraudulent schemes,
such as a list of individuals whose identifier s she had obtained unlawfully, most of the search involved the postal inspector asking Bankston a seri es of questions about her acquaintance with a co-conspirator and her reas ons for placing mail holds. 1 Bankston answered these questions, having signed a waiver of her Miranda rights.
Before trial, Bankston wrote a letter to the district judge complaining of a disagreement with her attorney about trial strategy. Bankston wanted to presen t as a defense her theory that
the evidence of the fraudulent schemes that was recovered from her home had been planted by a federal agent. Specifically, she claimed that Po stal Inspector Macek, who performed the search of her home, was in fact the same person as one of the two local police officers who had visited her home several months earlier on a separate inve stigation. Bankston explai ned in her letter that her attorney’s refusal to presen t the planted evidence th eory as a defense resulted in a breakdown of the attorney-cli ent relationship.

1 Bankston placed mail holds on certain individuals whose identities she had obtained in order to intercept various documents and checks that she had arranged to be sent to them.No. 14-3723 United States v. Bankston Page 4

The district court treated Ba nkston’s letter as a pro se motion to suppress the evidence and held a suppression h earing. The court also appointed new counsel to represent Bankston. At the suppression hearing, the two lo cal police officers testified that they were not aware of the federal investigation of Bankston when they vi sited Bankston’s home ear lier that year on a separate investigation, and that they did not ente r her residence or plant evidence. Instead, they
left a card in the door for Bankston to call. M acek testified that he wa s not aware of the local police investigation of Bankst on, and he was not at Bankston’s home when the local police officers paid a visit earlier that year. The dist rict court denied Bankst on’s motion to suppress.
Meanwhile, before the suppression hearing, th e government filed the Second Superseding
Indictment that included the c ount 23 false statement charge. That charge relied solely on
Bankston’s letter as the factual basis for the of fense, excerpting, for instance, portions of the letter in which Bankston explained her planted evidence theory. The indictment also stated that, in addition to deceiving the district court by pr esenting the planted evidence theory, the letter “caused the FBI and IRS agents assigned to th e case to perform additional investigation.”
Trial commenced on November 5, 2013. During voir dire, Bankston’s attorney informed
the district court that Bankston wished to proceed pro se. While the district judge was initially reluctant to allow Bankston to represent hersel f, the judge ultimately conducted an inquiry to determine if Bankston’s decision to waive her right to counsel was knowing and intelligent. The court found that it was, and Bankston remained pro se throughout the trial. The jury found Bankston guilty on all twenty-three counts.
At the sentencing hearing, Banks ton was again represented by an attorney. After hearing argument on various proposed enhancements to th e base offense level, the court determined Bankston’s base offense level to be 27, with a crim inal history category of VI, which resulted in the guideline range of 130 to 162 months. The court sentenced Bankston to 144 months on counts other than the aggravated identity theft counts, added a mandatory two-year consecutive sentence for Bankston’s aggravat ed identity theft c onvictions, and imposed a total sentence of 168 months. This appeal followed.No. 14-3723 United States v. Bankston Page 5

II.
Bankston raises five arguments on appeal. Fi rst, she argues that her waiver of counsel
was invalid because the district court failed to conduct a full Faretta inquiry, as required by
United States v. McDowell , 814 F.2d 245 (6th Cir. 1987). Second, Bankston contends that count
23 in the indictment was defective because th e underlying conduct for the charge—here, writing a letter to the district judge as part of a crimin al defense—is explicitly exempted from criminal liability under the statute. Third, and relatedl y, Bankston argues that ther e were numerous errors throughout the trial relating to c ount 23, which, individually and coll ectively, warrant a new trial on all counts. These alleged errors include: ine ffective assistance of coun sel in failing to object to or move to dismiss count 23; prosecutorial misconduct in overzealously pursuing that charge; and judicial bias resulting from the district judge’s failure to recuse himself, despite the fact that he was the recipient of Bankston’s letter and hence a victim of the false statement crime. Fourth, Bankston argues that her convictions on counts 16 (wire fraud) and 18 (m ail fraud) should be vacated because the government failed to prove essential elements of the crimes in those respective counts—namely, the use of an inters tate wire communication for wire fraud and the use of the mails for mail fraud. Finally, Bankst on argues that the district court committed a series of errors in sentencing, such as incorrect ly calculating the base offense level and failing to provide an explanation for departure in the crim inal history category, whic h require resentencing.
We address each claim in turn.

A. Waiver of Counsel
The parties agree that plain error review app lies to the claim that Bankston’s waiver of counsel was invalid. Hence, in order to prevail, Bankston must show that the district judge’s
Faretta inquiry constituted a plain error that “aff ect[ed] [her] substantial rights” and that implicated the “fairness, integrity, or pub lic reputation of judicial proceedings.” Johnson v.
United States , 520 U.S. 461, 466–69 (1997) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also United
States v. Oliver , 397 F.3d 369, 375–76 (6th Cir. 2005).No. 14-3723 United States v. Bankston Page 6

1

. Legal Principles
The legal standards governing the validity of waiver of counsel are well-developed, though they are not with out complexities in application. In Faretta v. California , 422 U.S. 806, 819 (1975), the Supreme Court held that the Si xth Amendment right to counsel has implicit within it a right to self-repre sentation. Recognizing the advant ages of legal representation, the
Faretta Court required, however, th at, “in order to represent himself, the accused must knowingly and intelligen tly forgo those relinq uished benefits.” Id. at 835 (internal quotation marks omitted). Thus, while “a defendant need not himself have the skill and experience of a lawyer in order competently and intelligently to choose self-representa tion, he should be made aware of the dangers and disadvantages of self-repr esentation, so that the record will establish that he knows what he is doing and hi s choice is made with eyes open.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). Following the Court’s decision in Faretta , numerous circuits addressed the question of what type of “record” is necessary to establish that a defendant’s waiver of counsel was “knowing and intelligent.” See, e.g. , United States v. Hafen , 726 F.2d 21, 25–26 (1st Cir. 1984); Richardson v. Lucas , 741 F.2d 753, 756–57 (5th Cir. 1984); United States v. Kimmel , 672 F.2d 720, 721–22 (9th Cir. 1982); United States v. Bailey , 675 F.2d 1292, 1297–1302 (D.C. Cir. 1982).

This Circuit did so in McDowell , 814 F.2d at 248–50. There, we acknowledged the “difficult position” of a district judge in determining whether a waiver is knowing and intelligent. Id. at 248. “An overprotective judge who refu ses to allow a defendant to jeopardize his own defense may be reversed, and a judge who does not make a copi ous inquiry into the thought process of the accused (which may themselv es be characterized as trial strategy) is subject to an appeal . . . .” Id. at 248–49. To mitigate such concerns, we identified “the nature of the inquiry to be made and the procedure to be followed” when a criminal defendant expresses a wish to represent himself. Id. at 250. A model inquiry, we noted, is one provided in the Benchbook for U.S. District Court Judges (“Bench Book”). Id. We then instructed the district
courts in our circuit that:
In the future, whenever a federal district judge in this circuit is faced with an accused who wishes to represent himsel f in criminal proceedings, the model inquiry or one covering the same substant ive points along with an express findingNo. 14-3723 United States v. Bankston Page 7

that the accused has made a knowing and voluntary waiver of counsel, shall be made on the record prior to allowing the accused to represent himself.

Id. ; see also id. at 251 (Appendix to the Opinion (hereinafter “App.” ) reprinting a list of the Bench Book questions).

The law of our Circuit has evolved since McDowell . If the language of McDowell recommended a “formal inquiry” that consists of thirteen questions and one admonishment as specified in the Bench Book (or at least questions that cover “[those] sa me substantive points,”
id. at 250), our subsequent cases have hewed clos er to the underlying concern for setting forth the model inquiry, i.e. , the “difficult position” of the district judge, id. at 248. Thus, in the postMcDowell era, we have required only that the questions be “drawn from, or substantially similar to, the model inquiry set forth in the [Bench Book],” rather than a dhere literally to the recommended list of questions in the model inquiry. United States v. McBride , 362 F.3d 360, 366 (6th Cir. 2004); see also United States v. Utrera , 259 F. App’x 724, 728 (6th Cir. 2008) (“Substantial compliance and not literal adherence to [the m odel inquiry] is required.”). Consistently, we have revi ewed a district judge’s Faretta inquiry on appeal by focusing on whether the judge addresse d the “relevant considerations” behi nd the model inquiry, such as “the defendant’s familiarity with the law, . . . the gravity of the charges and the dangers of selfrepresentation,” and whether “t he defendant’s decision to wa ive counsel is voluntary.” United
States v. Miller , 910 F.2d 1321, 1324 (6th Cir. 1990); see also United States v. Williams , 641 F.3d 758, 767 (6th Cir. 2011) (“Very generally, th e model inquiry is thir teen questions about the defendant’s familiarity with the law and legal system, and the charges against him. This inquiry must be followed by a strong admonish ment that the court recommends against the defendant trying to represent himself or herself. ”). Where the record shows that the defendant “kn[ew] what he [wa]s doi ng and his choice [wa]s made with eyes open,” Faretta , 422 U.S. at 835 (internal quotation marks omitted), we have found the Faretta inquiry adequate.No. 14-3723 United States v. Bankston Page 8

2. Whether the Faretta Inquiry Was Adequate
In the case before us, the district judge began the inquiry by asking the following questions:

 “How far did you go in school?”

 “What college did you go to?”

 “Do you have any degrees?”

 “Have you ever studied law?”

 “When you were in college, did you take any courses involving the law either as to the procedure or th e substance of the law?”

 “Have you ever represented yourself in a criminal action?”

 “[D]o you understand the crimes you’re ch arged with in this case?” Based on an affirmative answer from Bankston, the judge then asked, “[c]an you list them for me now?”

 “Can you explain to me why you delayed until today while we’re impaneling the jury to decide that you wanted to represent yourself?” When Bankston answered, “I’ve been saying it over and over, [and] I discussed it with my attorneys,” the judge asked, “[d]o you have any idea what your defenses are?”

 The judge further stated, “I am just cu rious as to if you thought through what your defenses are.” Based on an affirm ative answer from Bankston, the judge then asked, “[h]ow are you going to establish that?”
The judge then warned Bankston of the di fficulties of self-repr esentation, stating, “[y]ou’ve got to decide whether you are really serious about representing your self. It’s a very difficult thing to do.” In a sim ilar vein, the judge also asked:

 “Do you understand if you represent yourse lf, it will be your decision whether you testify or not?”

 “And do you understand that if you repres ent yourself and testify, I’ll make you sit up here in the witness stand[?]”

 “Do you understand that you won’t be a llowed to consult with your lawyers about how you should answer a question when you’re being cross-examined?”

 “Have you ever heard the statement that he who represents himself has a fool for a client?”
When Bankston repeatedly expressed her unde rstanding of the difficulties of selfrepresentation and her wish to do so regardless, the judge inquired one final time, “[o]kay. InNo. 14-3723 United States v. Bankston Page 9

spite of that, you want to repres ent yourself; is that true?” Bankston responded, “[y]es, I do.” The judge then stated: “Let me say for the reco rd that I am satisfied that the defendant has sufficient understanding of the case and sufficient intelligence to undertake the task of representing herself. She has a cons titutional right to represent herself.”
Under these circumstances, we cannot say that the district judge’s inquiry was inadequate under the “substantially similar” standard. Firs t, while Bankston argues that the judge asked only three out of the th irteen model questions, 2 that accounting seems to be incorrect. For instance, the judge informed Banks ton of the possibility of taking the stand and the consequences of doing so, as required by the model inquiry. Compare R. 242: Voir Dire Tr., at 2754 (“Do you understand if you represent yourself, it will be your decision whethe r you testify or not? . . . And do you understand that if you represent yourself a nd testify, I’ll make you sit up here in the witness stand?”) with McDowell , 814 F.2d at 251 (App.) (“(k) Y ou realize, do you not, that if you decide to take the witness stand, you mustpresent your testim ony by asking questions yourself? You cannot just take the stand and tell your story. You must proceed question by question through your testimony.”). While Bankston also argues that the judge did not mention the statutory maximum penalties at voir dire, the record shows that the district court discussed, at the suggestion of the government, the statutory maximums for each count the following day. 3 Indeed, while we recognize the time lapse between the initial Faretta inquiry and when the colloquy on statutory maximums occu rred, we do not find it to be a plain error he re because the colloquy took place at the beginning of the tria l before any evidence was introduced, and, as demonstrated below, the Faretta inquiry is not rendered defici ent due to the absence of any particular question.

2 Our “3 out of 13 questions” formulation is substantively the same as Bankston’s “4 out of 14 questions” characterization. Bankston’s charact erization construes the “strong admoni shment” requirement as a question, rather than a statement, which is how we characterized it in McDowell , 814 F.2d at 251 (App.), and how we understand it here.
3 We reject Bankston’s argument that the government’s proposal on the first day of trial to go over the statutory maximums suggests that the government knew that the initial Faretta inquiry was deficient. Although the government acknowledged that one of the thirteen model questions had not been asked, it did not indicate that the inquiry conducted was inadequate overall. Nor do we find it problematic that it was the government, rather than the district judge, that explicitly discussed the statutory pe nalties. After thanking the government for placing the statutory penalties on the record, the judge asked Bankston if she “ha[d] any questions about the maximum sentences.” Bankston answered, “No.”No. 14-3723 United States v. Bankston Page 10

The “substantial similarity” standard, moreove r, does not require a precise accounting of the questions asked. The critical question under McDowelland our subsequent case law is whether, in context, the questi ons asked by the court meet the obj ectives of the model inquiry. Hence, while Bankston argues that the judge failed to ask the remaining eight out of the thirteen model inquiry questions, we find that many of t hose eight questions were in fact addressed during the colloquy, even if the j udge did not ask them verbatim. Upon learning that Bankston did not go to law school, the judge asked whether, in college, Bankston “t[ook] any courses involving the law either as to the procedure or the substance of the law,” R. 242: Voir Dire Tr., at 2750–51—an inquiry that “substantially” covers the two model questions regarding the defendant’s familiarity with the Federal Rules of Evidence and the Federal Rules of Criminal
Procedure. See McDowell , 814 F.2d at 251 (App.) (“(g)” & “( i)”). Similarly, while the judge did not explicitly ask whether Bankston’s decision to represent herself was “entirely voluntary on [her] part,” id. (App.) (“(n)”), the judge asked why she made th e decision late when the trial had already commenced, and Bankston answered that she had expressed her desire to represent herself “over and over” to her attorneys after ha ving “discussed it with [them],” R. 242: Voir Dire Tr., at 2751, a response which suggested vol untariness. The judge also asked Bankston whether, in spite of the diffi culties of self-representation, she wanted to represent herself, id. at 2755—a question that, again, bears s ubstantial similarity to one of the mode l questions in the
Bench Book. See McDowell , 814 F.2d at 251 (App.) (“(m) Now, in light of the penalty that you might suffer if you are found guilty and in light of all the difficulties of representing yourself, is it still your desire to represen t yourself and to give up your right to be represented by a lawyer?”).
We recognize that the remaining four questi ons were not asked. We reiterate, however,
that our disavowal of “literal adherence” to the model inquiry, Utrera , 259 F. App’x at 728, means not only that each individual question need not be identical to one of the Bench Book questions, but also that the overall shortfall as co mpared to the thirteen questions need not be an

error. 4 Rarely, if ever, have we based the adequacy of the Faretta inquiry solely on the precise

4 Where we have found error in the district court’s Faretta inquiry, it was based on the judge’s failure to address the relevant considerations or make the express finding at all—instances clearly distinguishable from the case at issue. See, e.g. , United States v. Herrera-Martinez , 985 F.2d 298, 301–02 (6th Cir. 1993) (finding error inNo. 14-3723 United States v. Bankston Page 11

number of the model questions asked. See id. (holding that the distri ct judge “substantially complied with the McDowell inquiry” because the Court “rigor ously explained the pitfalls of self-representation” and “repeatedly attempted to dissuade [the defendant] from proceeding pro se, point[ing] out that [he] lack ed appropriate legal training” and he “woul d likely increase his risk of conviction” by choos ing to represent himself); Williams , 641 F.3d at 767 (“The district court’s questioning substantially covered the thirteen model que stions drawn from the Bench Book . . . .”); see also Miller , 910 F.2d at 1324–25.
Finally, Bankston argues that th e district judge did not make an express finding that her waiver of counsel was knowing and volunt ary, as required by the model inquiry. See McDowell , 814 F.2d at 251 (App.) (“(o)”). The district judge noted, however, th at he was “satis fied that the defendant has sufficient understanding of the case and sufficient intellig ence to undertake the task of representing herself.” R. 242: Voir Dire Tr., at 2759. While Banks ton contends that this statement does not suffice as an express finding because the judge did not say “knowing and voluntary,” the requirement of anexpress finding is not a magi c word test. We held in Williams , “[a]lthough the district court did not specifically find that [t he defendant] had knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to c ounsel,” the district judge’s stat ement at issue—“I find that you have the requisite knowledge, ed ucation and ability to represent yourself in this matter”— “establishes that [the defenda nt’s] waiver was knowing and vol untary, and the district court substantially made the required finding .” 641 F.3d at 767 (emphasis added). The district judge’s colloquy and the statement here is virtually indistinguish able from the statement in
Williams

. In sum, the district court addressed the “relevant considerations”—including “the defendant’s familiarity with the law,” “the grav ity of the charges,” and “the dangers of selfrepresentation,” Miller , 910 F.2d at 1324—by asking a series of questions that were “drawn from, or substantially similar t o,” the model inquiry questions, McBride , 362 F.3d at 366. The judge also “substantially made the required finding” that Banks ton’s waiver of counsel was

the district court’s inquiry because the judge allowed the defendant to proceed pro se without making any express finding); United States v. Clemons , No. 97–6267, 1999 WL 196568, at *4 (6th Cir. 1999) (holding that the defendant’s waiver of counsel was ineff ective because, inter alia, “[ t]he record reveals that the district court did not make this inquiry or warn [the defendant] of the dangers of self-representation”).No. 14-3723 United States v. Bankston Page 12

knowing and voluntary. Williams , 641 F.3d at 767. We, therefore, find no error, let alone plain error, in the judge’s Faretta inquiry.

B. Defective Indictment as to Count 23
Count 23 of the operative indictment charge d Bankston with violating 18 U.S.C. § 1001 for making false statements in her letter to the di strict judge when she asserted that the postal inspector who searched her home while inve stigating Bankston’s fraudulent schemes had previously posed as a local police officer and plan ted the evidence that he later seized from her residence. On appeal, Bankston claims that count 23 was defectiv e because the underlying conduct was not a crime under § 1001(b), i.e. , the charge failed to state an offense. Section 1001(b) provides that § 1001(a)—which criminaliz es making false statem ents in “matter[s] within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States”—“does not apply to a party to a judicial proceeding . . . for statements, representations, writings or documents submitted by such party . . . to a judge or magistrate in that proceeding.” 18 U.S.C. § 1001(b). Bankston asserts that her conviction on count 23 must, therefore, be vacated.
The government claims that Bankston’s chal lenge to her conviction on count 23 is waived because it was not raised in a pretrial motion pursuant to Rule 12(b). Alternatively, the government contends that Bankston’s conduct is not facially exempt be cause the indictment alleged that Bankston’s false statements related to matters “within the jurisdiction of the judicial and executive branches of the United States” and “caused the FBI and IRS agents assigned to the case to perform additional inves tigation in connection with the Defendant's allegations.” We begin with the issue of waiver.

1. Waiver and Standard of Review
The government’s contention that Bankston’s claim is waived presents a threshold question as to which version of Rule 12 applie s in this case. The 2013 version of Rule 12— which was in place when Bankston was tried a nd filed this appeal—stated that “a motion alleging a defect in the indictment” must be filed prior to trial, and that a failure to do so would
result in a waiver of that claim. Fed. R. Crim. P. 12(b)(3)(B), 12(e) (2013) . This old version ofNo. 14-3723 United States v. Bankston Page 13

Rule 12, however, also carved out an exception to the waiver rule stating that “at any time while the case is pending, the court may hear a claim that the indictment or information fails to invoke the court’s jurisdiction or to state an offense.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 12(b)(3)(B) (2013). 5 By contrast, the 2014 version of Rule 12(b)—which took effect on December 1, 2014, when this appeal was pending and is still in force—eliminated the “failure to state an offense” exception, while modifying the consequences of failing to file a 12(b)(3) motion. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 12(b)(3)(B)(v) (2014). That is, the current rule states that a failure to file a 12(b)(3) motion prior to trial—including, a motion alleging a failure to state an offense—is “untimely,” but that a court may nonetheless “consider [the objection] if th e party shows good cause.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 12(c)(3) (2014). The government argues that the current versi on of the rule applies and Bankston’s claim is waived, or, alternatively, even if the claim is not waived, it is subject to plain
error review because Bankston did not raise it in the district c ourt. Bankston argues that, under the applicable older version of Rule 12, her claim is not only pres erved but it is subject to de
novo review. We conclude that Bankston has the better argument.
The Supreme Court’s order promulgating the 2014 amendments to the Federal Rules of
Criminal Procedure stated that the new rules “s hall govern in all proceedings in criminal cases thereafter commenced and, insofar as just and practicable , all proceedings then pending.” S. Ct. Order Amending Fed. R. Crim. P. at ¶ 2 (Apr. 25, 2014) (emphasis added). The language in this order parallels the language in the Rules En abling Act, which provides that “the Supreme Court shall not require th e application of such rule to furt her proceedings then pending to the extent that, in the opinion of the court in whic h such proceedings are pending, the application of such rule in such proceedings would not be feasible or would work injustice .” 28 U.S.C. § 2074(a) (emphasis added). Hen ce, the applicability of ame nded Rule 12 depends on whether its retroactive application to cases pending at the time of the amendment would be “just and

5 We acknowledge that we have inconsistently applied the now-defunct 12(e) “waiver” provision. As we observed in United States v. Soto, 794 F.3d 635, 649 (6th Cir. 2015), we sometimes construed the party’s failure to file a timely pretrial motion as a “tru e waiver,” other times construed it as forfeiture and conducted plain error review, and yet other times avoided “resolving the proper characterization” or examined “whether the appellant had shown good cause for the failure.” Id. at 649–50. Because we decide here that the earlier version of Rule 12 applies, and under that version an indictment fails to stat e an offense when it omits a f acially applicable statutory exemption, see infra , we do not comment on whether Bankston’s defective indictment claim would have been subject to waiver under the current rule.No. 14-3723 United States v. Bankston Page 14

practicable,” or, instead, would “work injustice” or be “[in]feasible.” In the latter circumstances, the old rule governs. See Landgraf v. USI Film Prods , 511 U.S. 244, 275 n.29 (1994) (“Our orders approving amendments to federal procedur al rules reflect the co mmonsense notion that the applicability of such provisi ons ordinarily depends on the pos ture of the particular case.”); see also, e.g. , Diaz v. Shallbetter , 984 F.2d 850, 853 (7th Cir. 1993) (holding that the “just and practicable” exception means only that the amendments “may or may not govern” in pending cases, and that it is not a blanket “authorization for retroactive a pplication”).
Here, we conclude that app lication of amended Rule 12 w ould “work injustice,” since,
under the current rule , the failure to raise a de fective indictment claim in a pre-trial motion may
result in a waiver of that claim. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 12(b)(3 )(B)(v) (2014). Indeed, the
situation here is much different from the few cas es in which we have applied amendments to the Federal Rules retroactively. In United States v. Soto , we applied the 2014 version of Rule 12 to pending proceedings because both the amended ru le and its predecessor treated the conduct at issue—a defendant’s failure to bring a pre-tr ial motion to sever the claims—the same way, i.e. , as a waiver. 794 F.3d 635, 648–50 & n.2 (6th Cir. 2015). If anything, the amended rule favored
the defendant in Soto because, as explained above, it elim inated Rule 12(e)’s reference to “waiver” and instead carved out a “good cause” exception. Likewise, in Ridder v. City of Springfield , we applied an amendment to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure retroactively in part because the conduct that was subject to sa nctions under the amended rule continued even after the amendments took effect. 109 F.3d 288, 296 (6th Cir. 1997). In the case before us, the older version of Rule 12 was in effect during Ba nkston’s trial and when sh e filed this appeal, and
it contained a “failure to state an offense” ex ception that could have—and we hold below did— preserve Bankston’s claim. To apply amended Rule 12 to Bankston’s claims would hence be unjust.
Under the 2013 version of Rule 12, we provid e plenary review to a claim that the allegations of the indictment fail to state an offense. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 12(b)(3)(B); United
States v. Gatewood , 173 F.3d 983, 986 (1999) (holding that de novo review applies if the claim that the defendant failed to raise under Rule 12(b) is a claim that “contends that the indictment fail[ed] to establish jurisdiction or to charge an offense”). Hence, we review de novo Bankston’sNo. 14-3723 United States v. Bankston Page 15

challenge to count 23, mindful that where, as he re, an indictment is not challenged until appeal,
“the indictment must be construed libe rally in favor of its sufficiency.” Id.

2. Whether the Indictment Failed to State an Offense as to Count 23
Bankston argues that the conduct alleged in count 23—writing a lette r to the district judge as part of a criminal defense—was not a crime under 18 U.S.C. § 1001 because the statute expressly exempts from criminal li ability statements made to a j udge in the course of judicial proceedings. See 18 U.S.C. § 1001(b). 6

The exemption, frequently referred to as a “j udicial function excepti on,” applies when the defendant shows: “(1) he was a party to a judicial proceeding, (2) his statements were submitted to a judge or magistrate, a nd (3) his statements were ma de in that proceeding.” United States v.
Vreeland , 684 F.3d 653, 662 (6th Cir. 2012) (quoting United States v. McNeil , 362 F.3d 570, 572 (9th Cir. 2004) (internal quotation marks omitted)); see also United States v. Holmes , 840 F.2d 246, 248–49 (4th Cir. 1988). Bankston’s letter to the district judge clearly satisfies all three elements of the exception. The f act that the indictment referenced Bankston’s false statements in matters “within the jurisdiction of the judicial and executive branches of the United States” does not change the analysis. Even c onstruing the indictment liberally, see Gibson , 513 F.2d at 979, count 23 is explicitly and exclusively premised on the letter that Banks ton wrote to the judge, particularly her allegations regarding the planting of evidence. It is of no legal significance that
the false statements in the letter concerned the ac tions of the executive br anch and thus required investigation by the executive agencies. Neithe r the statute nor our case law discussing the

6 Section 1001(a) sets forth the criminal prohibition, while § 1001(b) provides for the statutory exemption. These provisions state, in relevant parts: (a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, w hoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Go vernment of the United States, knowingly and willfully-- (1) falsifies, conceals, or co vers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact; (2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or (3) makes or uses any false writing or document k nowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry; shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years . . . . (b) Subsection (a) does not apply to a party to a judicial pro ceeding, or that party's counsel, for statements, representations, writings or documents submitted by such party or counsel to a judge or magistrate in that proceeding. 18 U.S.C. § 1001.No. 14-3723 United States v. Bankston Page 16

judicial function exception takes into acc ount the effect of false statements. See Vreeland , 684 F.3d at 662. A contrary interpretation, moreover, would render § 1001(b) inapplicable to all adversarial statements made by a criminal defe ndant that lead to an investigation by law
enforcement. 7

To find that Bankston’s conduct is not a crime under § 1001 does not end our analysis, however, because there is language in Vreeland suggesting that the judicial function exception may be an affirmative defense thatmust be raised by a defendant. See Vreeland , 684 F.3d at 662 (stating that the defendant “must show” the thr ee elements of the judicial function exception under § 1001(b)). But the case before us is appreciably different from Vreeland . In Vreeland and cases like it, the defendant’s conduct did not, on its face, fall within the judicial function exception, and thus the applicability of § 1001(b) was in dispute. Indeed, in Vreeland , we dealt with whether § 1001(b) applied to false statements made to a probation officer who was assigned to the defendant during his term of supervised release and who prepared the presentence investigation report. We held that it did not be cause a probation officer is more than a conduit between the defendant and the judg e when playing the role of an investigator, and the statements
directed at the officer were hence not made in a “judicial proceeding.” 684 F.3d at 664–65; see also United States v. Westberry , 491 F. App’x 364, 365–66 (4th Cir. 2012) (per curiam); United
States v. Grace , 396 F. App’x. 65, 65–66 (5th Cir. 2010) (per curiam); Manning , 526 F.3d at
618–20. But see United States v. Horvath , 492 F.3d 1075, 1080–81 (9th Ci r. 2007) (holding that statements made to a probation officer in the c ourse of preparing a pr esentence investigation report are protected under the § 1001(b) exception). Similarly, in McNeil , 362 F.3d at 572—the Ninth Circuit case quoted in Vreeland —the court addressed “wheth er the range of judicial activities implied by [the judicial function exce ption] includes the inquiry into a defendant’s

7 Legislative history supports our conclusion that the eff ect of false statements on an executive agency does not affect the applicability of the judicial function exceptio n. In codifying § 1001(b), Congress agreed with federal courts that had long recognized that a judicial function exception is “necessary to safeguard from the threat of prosecution statements made in the course of adversarial liti gation.” H.R. Rep. No. 104-680, at 4 (1996). The fear was that, without the judicial function exception, § 1001 would “chill vigorous advocacy, thereby undermining the adversarial process.” Id. Thus, in codifying the judicial function exception, Congress drew a bright-line rule distinguishing “the adjudicative and administrative functions of the court.” Id . at 9 (noting that “only those representations made to a court when it is acting in its administrative or ‘housekeep ing’ capacity,” such as “submissions related to bar membership,” are within the scop e of criminal prohibition). To consider the effect of false statements as a disqualifying factor—when those statements would otherwise satisfy the judicial function exception—would, therefore, restrict the scope of § 1001(b) contrary to Congress’s intent.No. 14-3723 United States v. Bankston Page 17

financial status for purposes of appointing counsel” and ultimately concluded that it did. In all these cases, there was a disput e—between the parties and acr oss circuits—as to whether § 1001(b) applied to the novel factual circumstances at issue. By contrast, there is no gray area or nuance in applying § 1001(b) to Bankston’s conduct: writing a lette r to a judge in the course of a criminal defense is the quintessentia l conduct protected from criminal liability.

Rather than Vreeland , this case is more akin to United States v. Hubbard , 16 F.3d 694, 697 (6th Cir. 1994), rev’d on other grounds , 514 U.S. 695 (1995), where we dealt with false statements that a defendant had made in resp onse to pleadings and motions in a judicial proceeding. We observed in Hubbard that the judicial function ex ception is different from “a formalistic objection to a defect in the indictment” because it “goes to the heart of whether, as a matter of law, [the defendant] can be convicted of the crime with which he was charged.” Id. at 698. We thus concluded—creati ng an apparent conflict with Vreeland —that a claim that the judicial function exception applies to particular statements is a clai m alleging a failure to state an offense and, therefore, is not waived under the old version of Rule 12(b). Id. ; see also
Gatewood , 173 F.3d at 986 (noting that, under Rule 12(b), “a defendant who contends that the indictment fails to establish jurisdiction or to ch arge an offense may raise that challenge at any time”); United States v. Harrod , 168 F.3d 887, 890 (6th Ci r. 1999) (holding that a claim that the
indictment failed to state an offense “can be ra ised for [the] first time on appeal”) (citing United
States v. Forbes , 16 F.3d 1294, 1297 (1st Cir. 1994)). Drawing upon our discussion in Hubbard , we hold in this case that where, as here, the und erlying conduct is so pate ntly not a crime that it satisfies § 1001(b) on its face, the indictment fa ils to state an offense when it charges a false statement crime while omitting the judicial function exception.
Because count 23 is based on conduct that, on the face of the relevant statutory exemption, does not constitute a crim e, we find that the indictmentfailed to state an offense in
count 23. We thus vacate Bankston’s conviction on count 23. See Gatewood , 173 F.3d at 986 (holding that a reversal of conviction is warrant ed, even without a showing of prejudice, where
“the indictment cannot within reason be construed to charge a crime”) (quoting United States v.
Hart , 640 F.2d 856, 857–58 (6th Cir. 1981)).No. 14-3723 United States v. Bankston Page 18

C. Due Process Errors Relating to Count 23
Bankston claims that the government’s refusa l to dismiss count 23, the district judge’s failure to recuse himself despite being the recipient of her lett er, and her counsel’s failure to object to or move to dismiss count 23—either i ndividually or collectiv ely—created an “unfair trial setting” that violated her Fifth Amendment due process rights. 8 Specifically, she asserts that
she would not have testified at tr ial if she had not need ed to defend herself against the count 23 charge, and her testimony opened the door to cro ss-examination in which her prior convictions
were revealed. She further claims that the di sclosure of her criminal background “infected” the fairness of the entire trial, which warrants vaca ting her convictions on all counts. We discuss each claim of impropriety before consider ing the issue of cumulative effect.

1. Prosecutorial Misconduct
Because Bankston did not raise a prosecutorial misconduct claim in the district court, we review the prosecutor’s conduc t only for plain error. See United States v. Henry , 545 F.3d 367, 376 (6th Cir. 2008). As described above, Bankst on must show that the alleged error was not only plain, but that it affected her substantial rights and implicat ed the fairness, integrity, or reputation of the trial. See Johnson , 520 U.S. at 466–69.
We have already held that count 23 was impr operly charged, and that her conviction on
that count must thus be vacated. While Banksto n also seeks to invalidate her convictions on the other counts based on alleged prosecutorial mi sconduct in pursuing the § 1001 charge, she cites no precedent supporting her contention that the prosecutor’s decision to pursue a charge— however ill-conceived—can by its elf constitute a due process e rror, absent evidence of an improper motive, inflammatory rhetoric, or othe r conduct “tend[ing] to mislead the jury or

8 The government does not respond to any of these argume nts. Instead, the government argues only that Bankston cannot raise an ineffective assistance of counsel claim because her decision to represent herself “rendered [her counsel’s] actions beyond the scope of an ineffect ive assistance challenge.” The government is wrong. Bankston has a viable ineffective assi stance claim because the co nduct to which she objects—her counsel’s failure to move to dismiss count 23—occurred during the time when she was represented by counsel, i.e. , after the district judge appointed trial counsel and before Bankston began representing herself at voir dire. See Wilson v. Parker , 515 F.3d 682, 698 (6th Cir. 2008) (stating that, where the conduct that gives rise to an ineffective assistance of counsel claim occurs prior to waiver, “the logic . . . that exercising the Faretta right to represent oneself necessarily eliminates claims of ineffectiv e assistance does not apply”).No. 14-3723 United States v. Bankston Page 19

prejudice the defendant.” Cristini v. McKee , 526 F.3d 888, 899 (6th Cir. 2008) (quoting United
States v. Carter , 236 F.3d 777, 783 (6th Cir. 2001)). Inde ed, while the prosecutor’s pursuit of count 23 in light of a facially applicable statutory exemp tion was “improper,” we cannot
conclude here that such behavi or was “flagrant,” as typicallyrequired by our case law. Cristini , 526 F.3d at 899; see United States v. Carroll , 26 F.3d 1380, 1385–86 (6th Cir. 1994) (holding that improper but non-flagrant pr osecutorial conduct requires a new trial if “(1) proof of defendant’s guilt is not overwhelming, and (2) defense counsel objected, and (3) the trial court
failed to cure the error with an ad monishment to the jury.”) (quoting United States v. Bess , 593 F.2d 749, 757 (6th Cir. 1979)).
Moreover, Bankston has not shown the requisite prejudice to warrant a new trial on the remaining twenty-two counts. See Carroll , 26 F.3d at 1385–86. Bankston does not claim that
the evidence on most of the othe r counts was insufficient to suppor t the jury’s verdicts, and our review of the record persuades us that th e jury heard ample evidence of her guilt. See, e.g. , infra Section II.D (rejecting sufficiency-of-the- evidence claim concerning counts 16 and 18). Additionally, the district court gave a limiting instruction about her prior convictions, remarking to the jury:
Let me interrupt and say that the fact that the defendant has these prior convictions is not any proof whatsoever that she’s committed the crimes that are alleged in the third superseding indictment . That testimony is admissible, so you may consider it with respect to her cred ibility. That’s the purpose for the court admitting the testimony to come in. You may consider the fact of a prior conviction as it relates to your determinati on as to her credibility, but it is—the fact of the prior convictions , the fact of being in pr ison is no proof that she’s committed any of the crimes that are alle ged in the superseding indictment—third superseding indictment. In short, Bankston’s claim of prosecutorial mi sconduct fails because she has not shown any of the requisite elements for establishing a due process error—that the proof of her guilt was not overwhelming, that she objected to the improper conduct, and thatthe court failed to cure the error with an admonishment to the jury. See Carroll , 26 F.3d at 1390. Accordingly, we reject
Bankston’s claim that she is entitled to a new tr ial based on prosecutorial misconduct.No. 14-3723 United States v. Bankston Page 20

2. Judicial Bias
Bankston’s judicial bias claim is also unpreserved and he nce is subject to plain error
review. See United States v. Hynes , 467 F.3d 951, 957–58 (6th Cir. 2006) (“[W]here the defendant does not contemporaneously object to th e trial court’s conduct, we review that conduct under the plain-error standard.”). The claim would be unav ailing under any standard, however. While Bankston argues that the trial judge shoul d have recused himself because he was the “victim” of the false statement crime, she fails to explain how the one remark by the judge on
which she relies—“where is the evidence that she submitted the handwritten letter to me?”— reflects bias. Indeed, contrary to Bankston’s contenti on, the district judge suggested dismissing count 23. The government declined, stating, “you can’t lie to a court. I’m not going to allow that to occur.” In the end, there is no indication in th e record that the judge exhibited a “high degree of favoritism or antagonism” necessa ry to support judicial bias. Liteky v. United States , 510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994); see also id. at 551 (stating that a judge’s conduct may be “characterized as ‘bias’ or ‘prejudice’” warranting recusal only if “i t is so extreme as to display clear inability to render fair judgment”); Lyell v. Renico , 470 F.3d 1177, 1187 (6th Cir. 2006) (holding that a recusal was warranted where the trial judge “t ook over the cross-examination of the central
witness in the case . . . and elicited informati on not revealed on direct examination” and “chose to limit questioning [of the witness] on her own” absent objection from the prosecutor). Thus, we reject Bankston’s cl aim of judicial bias.

3. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel
Bankston asserts that her court-appointed attorney provided ineffective assistance in failing to object to and move to dismiss count 23 during the period in which the attorney represented Bankston. While we do not typicallyconsider ineffective assistance of counsel claims on direct appeal, we depart from that practice where “the ex isting record is adequate to assess properly the merits of the claim.” Hynes , 467 F.3d at 969 (quoting United States v.
Franklin , 415 F.3d 537, 555–56 (6th Cir. 2005 )). Here, we find that th e record is adequate and
hence review Bankston’s claim de novo. See Mallett v. United States , 334 F.3d 491, 497 (6th Cir. 2003) (“Ineffective assistance of counsel clai ms are mixed questions of law and fact, which
we review de novo on appeal.”).No. 14-3723 United States v. Bankston Page 21

Under Strickland v. Washington , 466 U.S. 668, 687–94 (1984), a defendant must satisfy a two-pronged standard to demonstrat e ineffective assistance of counsel . First, the defendant must show that counsel’s performance was “deficient,” i.e. , that it “fell below an objective standard of
reasonableness.” Id. at 687–88. Second, the defendant must s how that the deficient performance by counsel was prejudicia l to the defense. Id. This showing of prej udice requires “a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the resu lt of the proceeding would have
been different.” Id. at 694.; accord Rayner v. Mills , 685 F.3d 631, 636 (6th Cir. 2012).
Trial counsel’s failure to object to or move to dismiss count 23 satisfies the performance prong of Strickland

. See Magana v. Hofbauer , 263 F.3d 542, 550 (6th Cir. 2001) (holding that counsel’s “complete ignorance of the relevant law under which his clie nt was charged” fell below the objective standard of reasonableness); Washington v. Hofbauer , 228 F.3d 689, 702 (6th Cir. 2000) (finding that counsel’s failure to object to prosecutorial misconduct may constitute a deficient performance where the “f ailure is due to . . . lack of knowledge of controlling law, rather than reason able trial strategy”). We also find prejudice as to count 23 because there is a reasonable pr obability that, had Bankston’s c ounsel objected to count 23, the charge would have been dismissed. See Strickland , 466 U.S. at 694 (stati ng that a reasonable probability is “a probability sufficient to und ermine confidence in the outcome”). This prejudice, however, has been addressed by our conclusion that her conviction on count 23 must
be stricken based on the indictment ’s failure to state an offense. In other words, any remedy for ineffective assistance of counsel regarding count 23 is mooted by the remedy we have already
afforded on an alternative basis.
While Bankston makes passing references to broader prejudice to her convictions on other counts resulting from the revelation at tria l of her prior convictions, she does not develop this argument fully. Hence, the claim is waived. See United States v. Sandridge , 385 F.3d 1032, 1035–36 (6th Cir. 2004) (“Issues adverted to in a perfunctory manner, unaccompanied by some effort at developed argumentati on, are deemed waived.”) (quoting Popovich v. Cuyahoga Cnty. Ct. of Common Pleas , 276 F.3d 808, 823 (6th Cir. 2002)); McPherson v. Kelsey , 125 F.3d 989, 995–96 (6th Cir. 1997) (“It is not sufficient for a party to mention a possible argument in the most skeletal way, leaving the court to . . . put flesh on its bones.”) (quoting Citizens AwarenessNo. 14-3723 United States v. Bankston Page 22

Network, Inc. v. U.S. Nuclear Reg. Comm’n , 59 F.3d 284, 293–94 (1st Cir. 1995)). We add, moreover, that even if we were to address the claim of broader prejudice, we would find no such prejudice for the reasons stated supra , Section II.C.1—namely, that the jury otherwise heard ample evidence of her guilt and the court gave a limiting instruction.

4. Cumulative Effect
Bankston argues that, even if each assert ed impropriety relating to her count
23 conviction does not on its own result in denial of her constitutional right to a fair trial, the cumulative effect of the errors created an unfair trial setting that violated her due process rights. The existence of only one error, however, elim inates the foundation of her cumulative-effect theory. Indeed, our recognition of the cumulative-effect theory has been limited to situations where “[e]rrors that might not be so prejudicial as to amount to a deprivation of due process when considered alone, may cumulatively produce a trial setting that is fundamentally unfair.” United States v. Hernandez , 227 F.3d 686, 697 (6th Cir. 2000) (quoting Walker v. Engle , 703 F.2d 959, 963 (6th Cir. 1983)). Here, we conclude that ther e is no prosecutorial misconduct or judicial bias, not that a ny error committed by the prosecutor or the judge was harmless. See United States v. Trujillo , 376 F.3d 593, 614 (6th Cir. 2004) (holding that, to establish cumulative error, defendant must show that “the combined effect of individually harmless errors was so prejudicial as to render his trial fundamentally unf air”). In short, Bankston’s cumulative effect argument fails because there is no cumulation of errors. See, e.g. , Baze v. Parker , 371 F.3d 310, 330 (6th Cir. 2004) (denying a due process clai m based on the cumulative effect argument
because the defendant “cannot estab lish any errors to cumulate”).
D. Insufficiency of Evidence as to Count 16 Wire Fraud and Count 18 Mail Fraud
Bankston argues that the record is insufficien t to support the jury’s findings of guilt on count 16, alleging wire fraud, and count 18, alle ging mail fraud, because the government failed to prove the use of an interstate wire communica tion or the mails. We review sufficiency of the evidence de novo, affirming the de fendant’s convictions if, “afte r viewing the ev idence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact co uld have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” United States v. Cunningham , 679 F.3d 355,No. 14-3723 United States v. Bankston Page 23

369 (6th Cir. 2012) (quoting Jackson v. Virginia , 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979)). We must draw “all
available inferences and resolve all issues of credibility in favor of the jury’s verdict.” United
States v. Smith , 749 F.3d 465, 477 (6th Cir. 2014) (quoting United States v. Salgado , 250 F.3d 438, 446 (6th Cir. 2001)).

1. Count 16 Wire Fraud
To prove wire fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1343, th e government must show, inter alia, that
the defendant “used or caused to be used an inte rstate wire communication in furtherance of the
scheme.” Cunningham , 679 F.3d at 370. The indictment stated that Bankston filled out the Lending Club loan application online from her hom e in Ohio and, in doing so, connected to the Lending Club server physically lo cated in Las Vegas, Nevada. Bankston contends that the government failed to prove that the server was in fact located in Las Vega s or, alternatively, that it was located in any specific place outside Ohio.

The record belies Bankston’s contention. Eric Kinney, from Lending Club’s Fraud Operations, testified that, while he could not be certain as to wh ich, the server c ould have been located in “Nevada, California, Santa Clara” at the time that Bankston filled out the loan application. By contrast, there was no evidence suggesting that th e server could have been in Ohio. The government was not obliged to prove the actual location of the Lending Club server, only that Bankston’s transaction involved the use of an interstate wire. See Gambill v. United
States , 276 F.2d 180, 181 (6th Cir. 1960) (holding that the government “need not prove everything in an indictment but onl y so much thereof as establishes a violation of the statute”). Viewing the testimony in the light most favorable to the prosecution, we conclude that sufficient evidence supported the jury’s finding that the gove rnment proved the interstate wire element of
count 16.

2. Count 18 Mail Fraud
Bankston’s argument regarding count 18 fails for similar reasons. Mail fraud, as specified in 18 U.S.C. § 1341, requires a show ing, inter alia, that the defendant’s conduct
involved “a use of the mails.” United States v. Crossley , 224 F.3d 847, 857 (6th Cir. 2000). While Bankston argues that the government fa iled to show the use of the mails elementNo. 14-3723 United States v. Bankston Page 24

(particularly that the Citizens Bank credit card was mailed in the first place), witness testimony at trial suggests otherwise. Bankston’s co-conspirator Hale testified that she “knew” that the Citizens Bank credit card “ended up” with Bank ston, and that she was familiar with Bankston’s practice of receiving “documents in the mail su ch as debit cards,” which were directed to
individuals whose identities sh e had obtained, including that of Rachelle Butler. Butler—the victim of Bankston’s identity theft—also testifie d as to the bank statemen ts from Citizens Bank documenting the use of the credit card, which appear ed to have been mailed to Butler, but which she did not receive seemingly due to the mail hol d that Bankston had placed on her address. Based on these testimonies, we cannot conclude that no rational juror could have found the use of the mails beyond a reasonable doubt.
E. Sentencing
Bankston argues that the district court comm itted multiple errors in sentencing that require resentencing on all but the aggravated identity theft counts (counts 6, 8, 19, and 22). 9 Specifically, Bankston contends that the district court (i) incorrectly used a base offense level (“BOL”) of 27 when it had previously determined the correct level to be 25, (ii) departed from the recommended criminal history category (“CHC” ) without an adequate explanation, and (iii) failed to rule on the disputed loss amounts from Bankston’s fraudulent schemes. The government concedes that the dist rict judge erred in using a BOL of 27 and agrees that the case should be remanded for resentencing on all non- aggravated identity theft counts. The government does not address the ot her alleged sentencing errors.
It is clear, based on the record and the partie s’ agreement on the issue, that the district judge erroneously used a BOL of 27 when it ha d earlier ruled that the level should be 25. Compare R. 254: Sentencing Hr’g Tr . at 4842–43 (the district judge remarking, “so I get an adjusted offense level of 25”) with id. at 4844–45 (the judge remarking, without an explanation,

9 Aggravated identity theft convictions are treated separately for sentencing purposes, with each conviction supporting a mandatory two-year sentence that has to be served consecutively with the sentence imposed for other crimes. See 18 U.S.C. § 1028A(b)(2). Where, as here, the de fendant is convicted of more than one aggravated identity theft charges, the sentences for all aggravated identity theft convictions may, in the discretion of the sentencing court, run concurrently with each other. See id. § 1028A(b)(4).No. 14-3723 United States v. Bankston Page 25

that “[t]he offense level has been fixed at 27” ). This error, alone, warrants remanding the case for resentencing on all but the aggrav ated identity theft counts.
We also address, however, the two additional errors raised by Bankston because they are relevant to the proceedings on rema nd. Her argument that the district court fa iled to explain its departure from the recommended CHC a ppears not to have b een raised in the district court and is thus subject to plain error review. See United States v. Mabee , 765 F.3d 666, 671 (6th Cir. 2014). We have held that “[a] court departin g upward from a defendan t’s calculated [CHC]”
must “‘articulate its reasons fo r departing from the guidelines in language relating to the guidelines.’” United States v. Schultz , 14 F.3d 1093, 1101 (6th Cir. 1994) (quoting United States v. Kennedy , 893 F.2d 825, 829 (6th Cir. 1990)). Here, the district judge departed from the calculated CHC of V to VI without providing any explanation. Simply stating that the court “grants the motion and affixes the criminal hi story category as VI”—without specifying the reasons “in language relating to the guidelines,” Schultz , 14 F.3d at 1101—is not sufficient.

Bankston’s claim that the district court faile d to resolve the dispute over the loss amounts is preserved, and we review it de novo. See United States v. Triana , 468 F.3d 308, 321 (6th Cir. 2006). Bankston points to three separate loss am ounts—one concerning the Ohio Department of Jobs and Family Services (“ODJFS”), anothe r concerning Wells Fargo, and another one concerning the Dollar Bank. Fede ral Rule of Criminal Procedur e 32(i)(3)(B) states that a sentencing court “must—for any disputed portion of the presentence report or other controverted matter—rule on the dispute or determine that a ruling is unnecessary either because the matter will not affect sentencing, or because the court will not consider the matter in sentencing.” We have required “literal compliance” with this rule. United States v. Nelson , 356 F.3d 719, 722–23 (6th Cir. 2004) (citing United States v. Monus , 128 F.3d 376, 396 (6th Cir. 1997)). Hence, while
the district court “need not esta blish the value of the loss with precision,” the court must “publish
the resolution of contested factual matters that formed the basis of the calculation.” Id. at 723. A mere expression of an agreement with the government’s proposed loss amount—without “explain[ing] how [the court] calculated the amount of loss and . . . respond[ing] to the defendant’s ‘specific factual objections to the methods of calculation’”—does not suffice. Id. (quoting . Monus , 128 F.3d at 396–97).No. 14-3723 United States v. Bankston Page 26

Here, the district court dete rmined that a dispute on the Dollar Bank loss amount does not affect sentencing. It is not apparent from the record whether the court ruled on the disputed loss amounts of ODJFS and Wells Fargo. When the government explained the fraudulent scheme that resulted in ODJFS’s loss, the district court merely asked that the lo ss be “demonstrated by some particular exhibit,” but did not specifi cally find that the government's loss amount was correct or explain how the court arrived at that amount. Similarly, we are unable to discern from the record—especially in light of the government’s failure to rebut Bankston's claim in its brief—any explanation from the district court about why Wells Fargo’s loss was not inflated, contrary to Bankston’s claim. Accordingly, in remanding the case for resentencing, we instruct the district court to provide an explanation fo r any upward departure in the CHC and resolve the remaining factual disputes regarding the loss amounts. 10

III.
For the foregoing reasons, we VACATE Bankston’s conviction on count 23, AFFIRM her other convictions, and REMAND the case for resentencing.

10 We decline to address whether the district court in correctly calculated the loss amounts. Bankston will have an opportunity to make this argument to the district court on remand. We also decline to address whether the district judge’s remark—that he has “32 months of discretion” within the 130-to-162-months guideline range— reflects his mistaken understanding that the guidelines sentencing range is bindi ng. To the extent that the judge’s remark suggests anything more than inartful phrasing, the district court on remand should treat the guidelines as advisory in accordance with United States v. Booker , 543 U.S. 220, 266–67 (2005).