2008 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 6-3-2008 

# U SA v . Lomb ardo P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 06-3861

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2008 D e c i sion s b y an author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " U SA v . L omb ar do " (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1073. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008/1073NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT N o. 06- 3861 UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v . P AT RI CK L OM BA RD O,

A ppel l ant O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e M id d le D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia D . C . C r i m i nal N o. 05- cr - 0132 ( H o n o r a b l e J a m e s M . M u n l e y) Subm i tt ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

A pr i l 17, 2008 B e f o re : S C IR IC A , C hi ef

Judge , A M B R O a n d F IS H E R , C i r cui tJudges . ( Fi l ed: J une 3, 2008) OPI NI ON O F THE COURT S C IR IC A , C hi ef

Judge . P a t r i c k Lo mb a r d o a p p e a l s h i s c o n v i c t i o n a n d s e n t e n c e . W e wi l l a f f i r m. L om bar do w as convi ct ed bya j uryon fourcount s under26 U . S. C . § 7201 fort ax evas i on and on s even c ount s under26 U . S. C . § 7202 forfai l ur e t o t ruthful l yacc ountfor2

and payoverw i t hhol di ng t ax. T he Pr es ent ence R epor tr ecomm ended a bas e l evel offe ns e of tw entyw i t h a tw o- l evel enhanc ementunderU . S. S. G . § 2T 1. 1( b) ( 1) forfai l i ng t o r epor torcorr ect l yi dent i fya s our ce of i ncome excee di ng $10, 000 i n anyy earfor cri m i nal act i vityand a secon d tw o-l evel enhan cem ent unde r U . S . S . G . § 3 B 1. 3 fo r abuse of a p osi t i on of trust . T he co rr espon ding sent encing g uidel i ne rang e w as 51-63 m on t hs’ i ncar cer at i on. T he D i s t r i ctC our tgr ant ed an upw ar d var i ance , s ent enci ng L om bar do t o 72 m ont hs ’ i ncar cer at i on. L om bar do w as t he gene r al m anage rof Pat co, a part ner s hi p form ed byhi s m other and hi s form erco- w or ker . T he G overnm entpr es ent ed evi dence thatL om bar do w as t he hi dden ow nerof Pat co, di ver t ed Pat co funds forhi s ow n purpos es w i t houtr epor t i ng t he m oneyas i ncome, and mi s us ed t axes w i t hhel d fr om Pat co empl oy ees . Sever al w i t nes s es t es t i fi ed t o L om bar do us i ng Pat co che cks t o obt ai n per s onal i t ems orcas h. W i t nes s es al so t est i fi ed to Patco’s and L om bardo’s accou nti ng and t ax records. L om bar do r ai s es fi ve i s s ues on appea l : 1) comm ent s bya pr os pect i ve j ur ort ai nt ed t he veni r e, 2) evi dence w as err oneous l yadmi t t ed, 3) the G overnm entoffe r ed i nfl amm at or ycl os i ng ar gum ent , 4) hi s R ul e 29 mot i on s houl d have be en gr ant ed, and 5) s ent enci ng enhanc ement s w er e err oneous l yappl i ed. T ur ni ng t o t he fi r s ti s s ue, L om bar do cont ends the veni r e w as t ai nt ed bythe s t at ement s of tw o pr os pect i ve j ur or s . O ne pr os pect i ve j ur ors t at ed, “I fee l thatanybody t hati s t r y i ng t o chea tt he G overnm entof anyki nd of l ar ge s um of m oney , I coul dn’ tbeD efe ns e couns el obj ect ed once on r el evanc e gr ounds and w as s us t ai ned dur i ng the 1 t es t i m onyof the home- cas e pedi atr i c nur s e. T he G overnm entas ked the w i t nes s i f s he (c o n tin u e d ...) 3 abl e t o gi ve a f

ai rdeci s i on. ” A not herpr os pect i ve j ur ori n r es pons e t o a ques t i on by defe ns e couns el r egar di ng a def endant ’ s deci s i on nott o t es t i fys ai d, “M yfee l i ng i s i f y ou have nothi ng t o hi de, t her e s houl d be no pr obl em w i th s t at i ng that . Y ou’ r e bei ng hones t . ” T w el ve otherpr os pect i ve j ur or s i ndi cat ed agr eementw i t h t hi s s t at ement . T he courtt hen i ns t ruct ed the veni r e on the pr es um pt i on of i nnocenc e, the G overnm ent ’ s bur den of pr oof, and t he ri gh tt o rem ai n si l ent. T he co urtasked if any on e w ou l d b e un able t o fo l l ow these i ns t ruct i ons as r equi r ed byl aw . T her e w er e no af fi r m at i ve r es pons es . N ei t herj ur orw ho h a d v o ic e d c o n c e rn s , n o r t h o s e w h o in d ic a te d th e ira g re e m e n t, w e re s e a te d . B eca us e Lom bar do di d notobj ectt o t he i ns truct i on orthe cont i nuat i on of voi rdi r e, w e r evi ew forpl ai n err or . T he “mer e exi s t ence ” of a nypr econc ei ved not i on r egar di ng g u ilt o r i n n o c e n c e d o e s n o t r e b u t th e p re s u m p tio n o f a p ro s p e c tiv e ju ro r’ s im p a rt ia lity. Irv in v . D o w d , 3 6 6 U .S . 7 1 7 , 7 2 3 (1 9 6 1 ). “I t is su f f icie n t if th e ju ro r c a n lay as id e h is im p re s s io n o r o p in io n a n d re n d e r a v e rd ic t b a s e d o n th e e v id e n c e p re s e n te d in c o u rt .” Id . T he pr os pect i ve j ur or s al l i ndi cat ed theyw oul d be abl e t o fol l ow the i ns t ruct i ons of the D i s t r i ctC our ton t he r i ghtt o r emai n s i l entand the pr es um pt i on of i nnocenc e. T her e w as no cl earerr orher e. S e c o n d , L o m b a rd o c o n te n d s th e D is tr ic t C o u rt e rr e d in a d m ittin g c e rt a in e v id e n c e . B eca us e ther e w as no obj ect i on att r i al , w e r evi ew forpl ai n err or . T he G overnm ent 1( . . . cont i nued) 1 re c o g n ize d a p a rticu lar c h e c k ; th e w itn e ss re sp o n d e d a f f irm a tiv e ly , the n c o n tin u e d to di s cus s a vehi cl e r ece nt l ypur chas ed bythe def endant . B efor e and a ft erthe obj ect i on, ev iden ce w as a d m itted re g ard ing p ay m en t of the h o m e-n u rsi n g p rov ider. 4 p rese n ted e v iden ce that L o m b ard o rec eive d h ea lth insu ran ce b en ef it s fo r his so n ’s ca re t hathe fa i l ed t o tur n overt o t he home- nur s i ng pr ovi der . E vi dence pert ai ni ng t o t he curr entfi nanci al s t atus of Lom bar do’ s bus i nes s part nerw as al s o admi t t ed, as w as e v id e n c e a b o u t a h o m e L o m b a rd o in te n d e d to p u rc h a s e a n d th e m e th o d o f p a ym e n t. L om bar do cont ends t hi s evi dence w as i r r el evantand pr ej udi ci al underFeder al R ul es of Evi dence 404( a) and 403. B utthi s di d noti nvol ve cha r act erevi dence and the p rob ati v e v alue o u tw eigh ed an yp rejud ici al ef fe ct. T h e e v iden ce o n the h ea lth ca re b en ef it s ref u ted L o m b ard o ’s claim that the c ash an d ch ec k s rec eive d fro m P atco w ere m ere lyrep ay m en ts of

a loa n to the co m p an yo u t of h is sav ing s. S ince L o m b ard o ’s b u sin e ss p a rtn e r le n t m o n e yto P a tco a n d re c e iv e d re p a ym e n t in c a sh a n d c h e c k s, h is f in a n c ial s tatu s w a s re lev a n t. A lso , L o m b a rd o ’s p u rc h a se o f th e h o u se w a s p ro o f

h e p a id forper s onal i t ems w i t h Pat co money . T he evi dence w as pr obat i ve on the cha r ges of t ax evas i on and fa i l ur e t o tur n overPat co empl oy ees ’ w i t hhol di ng t ax. T h ir d , L o m b ard o co n tend s the G o v ern m en t’ s clo sing arg u m en t w as in flam m atory a n d c o n sis ted o f

p e rso n a l o p in io n . W e re v iew f o r p lain e rro r b e c a u se d e f e n se c o u n se l d id notobj ectorr eques ta mi s t r i al . L om bar do pr ot es t s the pr os ecut or ’ s r emar ks aboutfai l i ng to p a yh is s o n ’s n u rs in g e x p e n s e s , h is b u s in e s s p a rt n e r’ s d e b t, a n d h a rm in g h is e m p lo y e e s .5

A ft err evi ew i ng t he G overnm ent ’ s cl os i ng ar gum ent , w e conc l ude the r emar ks w er e not in f la m m a to ry a n d w e re c o m m e n ts u p o n , a n d in f e re n c e s d ra w n f

ro m , th e e v id e n c e . M or eover , t he D i s t r i ctC our tr epea t edl yi ns t ruct ed the j urythats t at ement s m ade by c o u n s e l w e re n o t e v id e n c e a n d s h o u ld n o t b e c o n s id e re d a s s u c h . L om bar do al s o appea l s t he deni al of hi s R ul e 29 mot i on, s peci fi cal l yC ountFour char gi ng t ax eva s i on i n 2001 under26 U . S. C . § 7201. W e r evi ew s uffi ci encyof the evi dence i n t he l i ghtm os tfavor abl e t o t he G overnm ent . U ni t ed St at es v. C oy l e, 63 F. 3d 1 2 3 9 , 1 2 4 3 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 5 ). L o m b ard o co n tend s p roo f o f tax ev asio n req u ir es e ith er a ci vi l as s es s m entof the t ax ors el f- as s es s m entthr ough t he fi l i ng of a t ax r eturn. B ut26 U . S. C . § 7201 pr ohi bi t s evas i on of both as s es s m entand paym entof i ncome t axes . U ni t ed S ta te s v . F a rn s w o rt h , 4 5 6 F .3 d 3 9 4 , 4 0 3 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 6 ). A s s e s s m e n t is n o t r e q u ir e d . Id . R evi ew i ng t he tr i al evi dence i n t he l i ghtm os tfavor abl e t o t he G overnm ent , the D i s t r i ct C our tdi d noterri n deny i ng L om bar do’ s R ul e 29 mot i on. Fi nal l y , L om bar do cont ends the D i s t r i ctC our terr ed i n appl y i ng a s ent enci ng enhanc ementunderU . S. S. G . § 3B 1. 3 and i n appl y i ng an upw ar d var i ance . W e r evi ew t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s fac tual det erm i nat i ons forcl earerr orand l egal det erm i nat i ons de novo. U ni t ed St at es v. G eor gi adi s , 933 F. 2d 1219, 1224- 25 ( 3d C i r . 1991) . L om bar do ar gues appl i cat i on of both U . S. S. G . § 3B 1. 3 and 26 U . S. C . § 7202 w as pr ohi bi t ed as doubl e-D oubl e- count i ng i s pr ohi bi t ed byU . S. S. G . § 3B 1. 3, w hi ch pr ovi des , “thi s adj us t m ent 2 m aynotbe empl oy ed i f an a bus e of trus tors ki l l i s i ncl uded i n t he bas e off ens e l evel or s peci fi c off

ens e cha r act er i s t i c. ” 6 count i ng of the s ame under l y i ng conduct . A ppl i cat i on of 26 U . S. C . § 7202 i s pr oper 2 w h e re th e d e f

e n d a n t f a ile d to tru th f

u lly a c c o u n t f

o r a n d p a yo v e r w ith h o ld in g ta x . A pp l i cat i on of U . S . S . G . § 3 B 1. 3 ap pli es w here the d efen dan tabu sed of a po si t i on of trust t h a ts i g n i f

i c a n t l y f a c i l i t a t e d t h e c o m m i s s i o n o rc o n c e a l m e n to f th e o f f e n s e . T o q u a l i f

y, t he pos i t i on abus ed musts ubs t ant i al l yfac i l i t at e the cr i m e and notm er el ypr ovi de an oppor tuni t yt hatcoul d have a s eas i l ybeen a ffor ded t o otherper s ons . U . S. S. G . § 3B 1. 3, cmt . n. 1. I tw as notnece s s aryfort he G overnm entt o pr ove an a bus e of trus tas defi ned b yth e G u id e lin e s in o rd e r t o c o n v ic t u n d e r 2 6 U .S .C . § 7 2 0 2 . See G eor gi adi s , 933 F. 2d at1225 ( aff

i r m i ng appl i cat i on of U . S. S. G . § 3B 1. 3 t o an under l y i ng convi ct i on for embezzl ement ) . T he D i s t r i ctC our tdi d notcountthe s ame under l y i ng conducttw i ce. L om bar do al s o cont ends t he D i s t r i ctC our terr ed i n vary i ng upw ar d fr om the s ent enci ng gui del i ne r ange. “I n cons i der i ng a cr i m i nal defe ndant ’ s cl ai m thata s ent ence is u n re a so n a b le, a re v iew in g c o u rt a sk s w h e th e r th e d istric t co u rt: 1 ) e x e rc ise d its di s cr et i on bygi vi ng ‘ m eani ngful cons i der at i on’ t o t he § 3553( a) fac t or s and 2) appl i ed t hos e fa ct or s r eas onabl ybys el ect i ng a s ent ence gr ounded on r eas ons that‘ ar e l ogi cal and cons i s t entw i t h t he § 3553( a) fac t or s . ’ ” U ni t ed St at es v. A us bur n, 502 F. 3d 313, 328 ( 3d C i r . 2007) . T he D i s t r i ctC our texer ci s ed i t s di s cr et i on appr opr i at el y , cons i der i ng the §7

3553( a) fac t or s . T he s ent ence i m pos ed w as r eas onabl e i n l i ghtof thos e fa ct or s and the e v id e n c e p re se n ted a t trial. Fort he for egoi ng r eas ons , w e w i l l aff i r m the j udgm entof convi ct i on and s ent ence .