District Judge, So uth ern District of Mi ssissippi, sittin g bydesi gn atio n. * Pursuant to Fifth Circuit Rule47 .5, th e court has determined that this o pinion should ** not be publishe d and is not pre cedent except und er the limit ed circu mstance s set forthinFifth Circuit Rule47 .5.4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 30567

U N IT E D S T A T E S O F A M E R IC A , P l ai n t i f f

- A pp el l ee v. SAM U EL H

. TH O M AS , D efen d a n t- A p p ell a n t
.

A pp ealf

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt f or t h e W est ern D i st ri ctof L ou i si an a , M on roe D i vi si on U SD C N o. 3: 06C R 30031- 01

B e fore JO N E S , C h i ef Ju dg e, E L R O D , C i rcui tJu dg e, an d G U IR O L A , D i st ri ct Ju dg e . * P E R C U R I A M: ** Fol l ow i ng a j ury t r i al , def endant

- appel l ant Sam uelH

. Th om as w as c o nvi c t e d o f

t w o c o unt s o f

f i l i ng a fal s e t axre t ur n and on e co untof t axe va s i o n. H e tim e lya p p e a le d b o th h is co n v ic tio n s a n d t h e re s tit u tio n o r d e r e d

. W e A F F I R M. United States Court of App eals Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D Jul y 20, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 08- 30567

2 I . B A CK GRO UND Sam uelTh om as appeal s hi s c onvi c t i on o n t w o c ount s of f i l i ng a fal se t ax
r et urn, 26 U

. S. C

. § 7206( 1) , and one c oun t of ta x evas i on, 26 U

. S. C

. § 7201. T h om a s , a self-des cribed cou n try law ye r i n L ou i sian a , em p l oy ed an ass i stan t, M atr a H am i l t on , an d an accoun t an t , L ou i s B radl ey, t o m an a ge h i s acc ou n t s. The fal s e t axr e t ur n c o nvi c t i o ns c o nc e r n hi s 19 99 c o r po r at e i nc o m e t axr e t ur n,
w h i ch report ed a gross i n com e of $43 6, 850 ( as aga i n sta ctu a l gr oss i n com e of $1, 231 , 681 ) , an d h i s 1999 i n di vi du alt ax r e t ur n, w h i ch report ed a taxab l e i n com e of $66, 575 de spi t e purc hase s and di sb urs em ent s of appro xi m at el y $310 , 000 t hat ye ar . Tho m as c o nc e de s t hathi s b o o ks w e r e no t m o num e nt s t o o r ga ni z at i o n, b ut d e n ie s th a t h is b e h a v io rw a s cr im in a l. Th e e vas i on c onvi c t i on s t em s f r om Th om as ’ s fai l ure t o m ake a par t i c ul ar di s c l o s u re dur i ng ne go t i at i o ns w i t h t he I nt e r nalRev e nue Se r vi c e ( I RS) regardi n g overdu e t ax l i abil i t y i n excess of $40 7, 000
. T h e n egoti atio n s w ere i ni t i at ed o n gr ounds of “ doubt as t o c ol l ec t ibi l i t y, ” i

. e. , Th om as ’ s i nabi l i t y t o pay . A tthe t i m e, T h om as’ s l aw f i rm w as eng aged i n l i t i gati n g an d m edi ati n g a case ( “ t h e Wi l ey m a tt e r ”) it h a d ta k e n o n a c o n tin g e n c yfe e b a s is

. Th om as di d n ot di sc l os e i n hi s negot i at i ons w i t h th e I R S t he pos sibi l i t y t hat he m i ghtr ec eive a tt o r n e y ’ s fe e s in th e ca s e ; fo llo w in gs e tt le m e n t, h e re c e iv e d $ 5 5 7 ,1 9 3 fo rh is
w o r k o n Wi l ey . B radl ey, t h e accoun t an t , w as t ri ed w i t h T h om as. B ot h w ere acqui t t ed of
c o n s p i r a c y t o f

i l e a fa l s e t a x r e t u r n , a n d B r a d l e y w a s a l s o a c q u i t t e d o n t wo c o unt s o f

a i di ng anda s s i s t i ng andm ak i ng an d sub s c r ibi ng a fal s e t axr e t ur n. T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t d e n ie d T h o m a s ’ s m o tio n fo ra ju d g m e n t o f a c q u itt a l. I I . DI S CU S S I ON O n a p p e a l, T h o m a s ch a lle n g e s (1 ) th e s u ffic ie n c y o f t h e e v id e n c e fo ra ll t hr e e c o nvi c t i o ns , ( 2) t he pr o pr i e t y o f t he de l ibe r at e i gno r anc e j ur y i ns t r uc t i o n,N o. 08- 30567

Thoma s al so a sserted an inc onsi stent verdicts argument b elow, but does not raiseit 1 on appeal exce pt toalludeto it in a couple pages of his reply bri ef. Itis unclear whetherthis cl aimi s evenr ec ogniz edinthiscircuit , s e e U n i te d Sta tes v. Agofs ky , 4 58 F.3 d 36 9, 3 75 (5th Cir. 2006) (qu oti ng Un ited Statesv . P

ow el l , 469 U.S. 57, 69 (198 4)), but in anyevent we dee m itwaivedh er e. See United Sta te s v. Jackson , 4 2 6F .3 d 3 0 1 , 3 0 4n .2( 5 thC ir

. 2 0 0 5) (claim s rais ed on app eal fo r th e firs t ti meinar ep lyb ri ef arewaived); United States v. Thames , 21 4 F .3 d 6 0 8 , 6 1 2 n .3( 5 thC ir

. 2 0 0 0) (in a de qu atelyb ri ef edclaim s arewaived). The eleme nts of th e offense are that: (1) a false return was made and signed, (2) the 2 false entry was material , (3) the return cont ain ed a w r it t en declaration that it was made und er the penaltie s of perj ury , (4) the defen dant did not believe that the return was truean d corre ct whe n sign ed, and (5) thatth e defendant sign ed willfully an d withspecific inte nt to violateth e law. United States v. Bishop , 2 6 4F .3 d 5 3 5 , 5 5 2 ( 5 thC ir

. 2 0 0 1 ). 3 a n d ( 3 ) th e res ti tu ti on o rd ere d

. H e con ced ed th e th i rd issu e a t or a larg u m en t; 1 accordi n gl y, w e consi der only t h e f i rstt w o. A

. Su f f i ci ency of

t h e E vi d ence T h o m a s t im e lym o v e d fo ra ju d g m e n t o f a c q u itt a l, th u s p r e s e r v in gh is
c hal l enge t o t he suf

f i c i enc y of

the evi denc e. Acc or di ngl y, w e r evi ew t he deni al
o f t hatm o t i o n de no vo . Un itedS ta tes v. Ha rr is , 566 F

. 3d 422 , 4 3 5 (5t h C i r. 20 09 )

. “ U nde rt hi s s t and ar d, w e de t e r m i ne w he t he r a r e as o nab l e j ur y c o ul d f i nd th a t t h e e v id e n c e e s ta b lis h e s th e g u ilt o f th e d e fe n d a n t b e y o n d a re a s o n a b le d ou b t. ” Un i t e dS t a t e s v . Wi l l i a ms , 5 07 F

. 3d 9 05, 9 08 ( 5th C i r. 2 007 )

. W e vi ew th e e v id e n c e in th e lig h t m o s t fa v o r a b le to th e v e r d ic t a n d d r a w a ll re a s o n a b le i n fe r enc es and c r edibi l i t y c hoi c es f r om t he e vi denc e t o s upportt he ve r di ct. Ha rr is , 566 F. 3d at435.

1. Tw o coun t s of

m ak i n g an d su bscribi n g a fal se t ax ret u rn Th om as w as c onvi c t ed o f m aki ng and subs c r ibi ng a fal se tax re t urn, 26 U

. S. C

. § 7206( 1)

. H e c l ai m s t hat H am i l t on, hi s as si st ant , deal tw i t h B r adl ey, 2 andt hathe w as no ti nvo l ve d wi t h the prepa r at i o n o f t he 1 99 9 c o r po r at e a nd i ndivi dua l r e t ur ns . Thom as ad m i t s he s i gne d b o t h t he r e t ur ns , b utm ai nt ai ns he di d s o w i t hout r eadi ng t hem and t hat he hi r ed H am i l t on and B r adl ey so t hatN o. 08- 30567

The jury was in structe d onth e d efen s e of good faithreliance o n a t axprofession al. 3 Th e defe n ser equir es( 1 ) fulldis clos urean d (2 ) goo d faithr eliance . See, e.g. , Un ited Statesv . Charroux , 3 F.3 d 82 7, 8 31 (5thC ir. 1 993). O n ap p ea l, Thoma s onlyallude s to this defen se, and not until his replybrief. The Government concede s that Tho mas provi ded Bradl eywith allof his bank state ments, b ut argues that this di sclosure wa s neverth eless inc omplete b ec au seTh om a s didnotp rovid e expl a n ation s f orth e v ariou s d ep os it s an d expe n diture s. One spe cificincident illu minates, and provides support for, the jury’ s decision to find that Thoma s was not truthful with Bra dley . Bradl eysent over adraft of the 199 9 r eturn in Feb ruary 200 0. Hamilto n, Thoma s’s assistant, told Bra dley that the corpor ate inc ome wa s too high and should b e a dju sted do wnward. Bra dleycomplied. The jury could h ave re ason ably believed th at this instructiondid not really come from Hamilton , but fro m Thomas. If the jury so co ncluded, it would have meant that Thomas fail ed tofullydisclose financialinformation, whichwo uldu n de rm in e th e firs t pron gof thisd ef en se . See id. 4 h e di d n otha ve t o w orry ab ou th i s taxes a n d coul d avoid l i abil i t y. T h e basi s of 3 hi s s uf f i c i e nc y c h al l e nge i s t hata ny e r r o r s w e r e Br ad l e y’ s faul t , a nd t hata ny fau l tatt ribu t able t o T h om as w as m ere negl i gen ce. C on si d e rin gth e sig n ifi ca n t d isp a ri t y betw een t h e i n com e T h om as report ed
o n hi s c o r po r at e i nc o m e t axr e t ur n a nd h i s l aw p ract i c e ’ s a c t uali nc o m e , a nd vi ew i ng t he e vi denc e i n t he l i ghtm os tfavor abl e t o t he ve r d i ct, t he j ury w as ent i t l ed t o di sb el i eve t hi s exc use . I n 1999, Th om as ’ s l aw pr ac t i c e had $1 , 231, 681 i n gross i n com e versus t h e $43 6, 850 he reported. Th e f ees Th om as rec ei ved f rom t h e Wi l ey c as e a l o ne e xc e e de d t he e nt i r e a m o unto f c o r po r at e g ross in c o m e he report ed that year. (T h om as rec ei ved checks f or hi s w ork i n t h e Wi l ey m a tter t o t al i ng ap pr o xi m at e l y $6 47 , 19 3 i n 1 999. ) I n a ddi t i o n, a s di s c us s e d s upr a at
n ot e 3, B radl ey t est i f i ed t h at he sent draf

t s of t h e t w o ret u rns t o T h om as’ s of f i ce i n F ebru ary 200 0 an d that H am i l t on cal l ed an d st ated t h at Th om as’ s i n com e
w a s t o o h i g h o n t h e d r a f t
. B r a d l e yt e s t i f

i e d t h a th e t h e n ma d e s o me q u e s tio n a b le ch a n g e s to th e re tu r n , re d u c in g h i s i n c o m e a n d in c r e a s in gh is exp en ses. H e f

u rt h er t est i f

i ed ( t h ou gh T h om as di spu t ed) t h at Th om as revi ew ed t he t ax f

or m s bef

or e Bradl ey subm i t t ed t hem

. O n t hi s r ec or d , th e j ury w as en t i t l ed to credi tB radl ey’ s vers i on of even t s over T h om as’ s.N o. 08- 30567

Thoma s claims th at the car was a business expe nse because his wife helped o ut with 4 his firm. Thomas’s and his wife’s j oint indivi dual return lists Thomas’s wife ’s oc cupationas hou sewife, not a s a firm e mployee. Even without this purch ase, Thomas obviou sly spent more on person al items thanh e re ported in indivi dualgross income . 2 6U .S .C

. § 7 2 0 1
. Th e el em entsof eva sionare( 1 ) willfuln es s, (2 ) th e exis te nceof a 5 taxdeficiency, and (3) an affirmative act constitutinganevasionor an attempte d evasionof th e tax . United States v. Nolen , 4 7 2 F .3 d 3 6 2 , 3 7 7( 5 thC ir

. 2 0 0 6). 5 R egar di ng Th om as ’ s i ndi vi dualr et urn, t he di spari t y i n gr os s i ndi vi dual i nc o m e r e po r t e d i s s t r i ki ng. H e r e po r t e d $6 6, 57 5 i n per s o nali nc o m e i n 1 99 9, b ut
s pe nta ppr o xi m at e l y $3 10 , 00 0 o n per s o nale xp e ns e s t haty e ar , i nc l udi ng expe nsive gi f

t s f orhi s w i fe, a $5 3, 000 Lexus f orhi s w i fe, $ 5 0, 000 t o b uy a 4 cert i f i cat e of dep osi tan d f

u n d a ba n k accou n t fo r h i s w i fe, gi f t s t o rel atives e x c e e d i ng$ 2 2 , 0 0 0 , a d o na t i o n t o h i s c hu r c h f o r$ 2 5 , 0 0 0 , a $ 5 , 0 0 0 c a m p a i gn contribu t i on , an d other di sbu rse m e n ts, in clu d in gp u rc h a ses of j ew el ry, f

u rni t u re, an d el ect roni cs. A f t er r evi ew i n g ev id e n ce of t h ese pu rchases an d the ci rcum st an ces of T h o m a s ’ s f

ilin gh is t a x r e tu r n , t h e ju r yw a s e n tit le d to reje c t T h o m p s o n ’ s cla im t h at he si m pl y n ever l ooked at h i s ret u rns bef ore si gn i n g t h em . B ecau se t h e j u ry ap pa rentl y concl u ded t h a t T h o m pson w as at a m i n i m u m aw are of t h e gross i nco m e he r epo r t ed, t he j ury c oul d al so have bee n j ust i f i ed in con cl u di ng t hat T h om pson k n ew (orw as d el iberatel y i gn oran t ) t h at t h i s f i gu re w as far t oo l ow consi deri n g corporat e revenu e an d p ersonalexpen di t u res. I n sum , a r at i onalj ury c oul d have c onc l uded bey ond a r eas onabl e do ubt t h at Thom as kne w ho w m uc h m o ne y hi s b us i ne s s w as m ak i ng andt hathe mi s r e p o r t e d t h a tf

i g u r e wi l l f

u l l ya n d wi t h s p e c i f

i c i n t e n tt o v i o l a t e t h e l a w. 2. Eva s i o n c o unt 5
a . R ele v a n t fac ts I n 1994, Th om as pl ed g ui l t y t o t w o c ount s of fai l i ng t i m el y t o f

i l e s eve r al t ax r e t ur ns . O n D e c e m be r7 , 1 99 5, he w as r e l e as e d f r o m pr i s o n a nd s e r ve d t heN o. 08- 30567

6 r em ai nderof

hi s se nt enc e i n a hal f w ay hous e. H e s t i l low ed t he I R S $407, 000 f or un pa i d taxes. A tsom e p oi n t , h e t ook on t h e Wi l ey m att er m en t i on ed ab ove, a person ali nj u ry cas e in w h i ch h e represented D rai n a W i l ey i n a sui tagainst T ra d iti o n a l T ru ck in g(h is li ce n se to p ra ctice law h a d n o t y e t b e e n su sp e n d e d ). T h om as eng aged t h e hel p of t h ree ot h er l aw yers, a n d t h e four of t h em entered a conti n gen cy f

ee agreem en t w i t h W i l ey f or f ort y percent of

an y recover y, w h i ch t he l aw yer s agr ee d t o divi de e venl y. T h e sui tw as fi l ed on N ovem ber 5, 199 6, an d i n M ay 19 97, P rodu cers F eed C om p a nywas a d d e d a s a no t he rd e fe nd a nt
. On Au g us t2 0 , 1 9 9 7 , Tr a d i t i onal T ru ck i n g a gr ee d to a $ 9 0 0 , 0 0 0 settl em en t, bu t at t h e l a st m i n u te, attem p ted to ad d an add i t i on alt erm t h at Produ cers F eed C om pa n y al so be r el eased f rom l i abil i t y. W i l ey ref

u sed an d l i t i gated the set t l em en tagreem en t
. O n N ovem ber 21 , 1 99 7, t he de fe nda nt ’ s s us pe ns i o n f r o m t he pr ac t i c e o f

l aw be ga n. O n N ove m ber23, 1997, Th om as w r ot e t he I R S t o e xpl ai n t hat hi s bar l i c e ns e w as b e i ng s us pe nde d a nd t h at h e w o ul d no tb e a bl e t o m ak e t he pa ym e nt s o n hi s o ut s t and i ng $4 07 , 00 0 t axl i ab i l i t y. H e c l ai m e d t hatf r i e nds
w ere w i l l i n g t o l en d h i m $43 , 000 , bu tonl y i f t h at w ou ld e x tin g u ish t h e enti re l i abil i t y. T h i s l et t er bega n t h e of fer i n com prom i se ( O IC ) process . O n Jan u ary 14, 199 8, a com pl yi n g O IC w as sub m i t t ed, w h i ch i n cl u ded t h e requ ire d F o rm 656. An addi t i onalO I C w as s ubm i t t ed o n S ep te m ber10, 1998, w i t h an ad den du m on F ebru a ry 25, 199 9. A s t h e reason f or s u bm i t t i n g t h e O IC , each f o r m ha s c he c ke d “ do ubta s t o c o l l e c t ibi l i t y, ” i

. e . i ns uf f i c i enta s s e t s t o pa y t he out st andi ng t ax l i abi l i t y o f $407, 000. A n O IC al so r equ i res f orm s 43 3- Aa n d 433

- B , i n f orm ati on st atem en t s f or i n di vi du al s and bu si n esses , res pectivel y. Th o m as subm i t t ed h i s 433-Adated A pri l8, 1 998 , w h i ch h e up da t ed on Sep t em ber 23, 199 8. Th om as nev er s i gn ed t h i s f orm ; B radl ey di d. Th e f orm asks abou tan t i ci pa t ed i n creases i n i n com e, an d the “ n o” box i s c h ecked

. Th e f orm al so i n qu i res abou tcourtproceedi n gs.N o. 08- 30567

It to ok ap proximatelyon e year for Thomas to re ceive payment. Th e ch eck h e re ceived 6 was dat ed August 3 1, 1 999
. 7 T h e “y e s ” b o x is ch e c k e d , b u t t h e IR S a g e n t r e s p o n s ib le te s tifi e d t h a t t h e o n ly l aw sui tdi scl osed t o hi m w as a su i tbetw een T h om as an d som e fam i l y m em bers
over an est ate— n ott h e Wi l ey m att er. T h om as’ s 433-B i s dated N ovem ber 25, 199 7, an d w as u p d ated D e c e m be r3 1, 1 99 8. H e s i gne d t hi s fo r m , buti ti s no tc l e arw ho upd at e d i t
. (The
u pd ates are pen ci l ed-i n , a n d t h e si gn ature b l ock i s i n i t i al ed. ) Th e f orm asks f

or “a d d itio n a lf

i n a n ci a li n form a ti o n re g a r d in gfin a n c ia l co n d itio n .” T h o m a s m e r e ly st ates t h at t h e f

i rm i s c u rrent on i t s t ax l i abil i t i es. O n Augus t2 5, 1 99 8, W i l e y pr e va i l e d o n s um m ar y j udg m e nt
. Thi s r ul i ng
m e a n t t h e $ 9 0 0 ,0 0 0 s e tt le m e n t a g r e e m e n t w ith T r a d itio n a l T r u c k in g , if u p h e ld on appea l , w as enf

or c eabl e a nd t hat Th om as w oul d r ec eive a quar t erof t he f or t yper c entc ont i ngency fee , or $90, 000. H ow eve r , none of t he doc um ent s Th om as 6
s ubm i t t e d a f

t e rAugus t2 5, 1 99 8, i nc l ude d a ny r e fe r e nc e t o t h i s p ot e nt i al , a nd
s ubs t ant i al , i nc r e as e i n i nc o m e . The r e l e va nt do c um e nt s ar e : ( 1) t he up da t ed 433- B , dat ed D ec em ber31, 1998, ( 2) t he u p d a ted 4 33- A , dat ed Sept em ber23, 1 9 9 8 , ( 3 ) th e a m en d ed O IC , fi l ed S ep tem b er 1 0 , 19 9 8 , an d ( 4 ) th e a d d en d u m to t he O I C , f

i l ed Febr uary 25, 1999. T h om as al so n ever d i scl osed t h e p ossibi l i t y of sett l em en tw i t h P rodu cers F ee d C om p a n y. O n F eb ru a ry11 , 19 9 9 , P rod u cers F ee d C o m p a n y o ff ere d to set t l e f o r$ 1. 5 m i l l i o n, w hi c h was r ej e c t e d. N e ve r t he l e s s , t he O I C add e ndum , da t e d Fe br uar y 25 , 1 99 9, di d notm e nt i o n a po s s ibl e i nc r e as e i n i nc o m e . The
c as e w entt o m edi at i on, and on M ar c h 31, 1999, t he def endant r ec eived $557, 193 in a tt o r n e y ’ s fe e s fr o m a s e tt le m e n t w ith P r o d u c e r s F e e d C o m p a n y . Thom as ne i t h er up da t e d hi s O I C orhi s 4 33 f o r m s t o r e f

l e c tt he
se t t l em ent s, nori nf

or m ed t he I R S of

the se t t l em ent s i n any w ay. O n A pri l27, 199 9, t h e I R S , un aw are of t h e set t l em en t , acce p te d T h om as’ s of fer ofN o. 08- 30567

8 c o m p r o m is e . T h e c o m p r o m is e a g r e e m e n ts t a t e s , “ B a s e d u p o n th e ta x p a y e r ’s pr oj e c t e d f

ut ur e i n com e, t he s e r vi c e [ I RS] b e l i e ve s c o l l e c t i o n o f t he r e m ai ni ng lia b ility is in d o u b t.” O n M ay 4, 1999, Th om a s b orro w ed m oney f r om C r os s K eys bank t o pay t h e $43 , 000
. Just a m on t h earl i er he w as i ssued a check f or over $55 0, 000 f

rom th e P rod u cers F ee d C om p a n y se ttl em en t. O n D e c e m b e r 2 , 2 0 0 2 , T h o m a s a n s w e r e d q u e s tio n s fr o m a n IR S a g e n t in
a l e t t e r . Am o ng t he s e ans w e r s , Thom as de ni e d hav i ng anyi nvo l ve m e nti n t he Wi l ey m at t e r . A c c o r di ng t o t he G o ve r nm e nt , e vi de nc e o f Tho m as ’ s i nvo l ve m e nt i n t he s ui tcons i st ed of ( 1) payi ng i nves t i gat or s, ( 2) repr es ent i ng t o Tr adi t i onal T rucking i n w ri t i n g t h at he represented W i l ey, an d ( 3) w ri t i n g t o Produ cers F eed C om p a n y’ s cou n sel rega rd i n g a p ri or m ee ti n g a n d a p oten ti a lf u tu re se ttl em en t. A l lof t h i s al l eged l y occurred bef ore Th om as’ s l i cense w as suspen ded on N ove m ber21, 1997— t w o day s bef or e he f i r stc ontacted t he I R S re gar di ng an O IC

. Th om as al so c orres pon ded w i th o n e of W i l ey’ s ot h er at t orneys on D ecem ber 18, 199 8, an d com pl i m en t ed h i m on h i s han dl i n g of t h e case. In the s e r e s p o n ses , T h om a s also claim ed tha t he pr ov i d ed B ra d l ey w i th t he i nf o r m at i o n for the 43 3- A. I n a ddi t i o n, he c l ai m e d t hatt he f e e s f r o m t he Wi l ey ca s e w e r e re fle c t e d in h is re tu r n s . T h o m a s w r o te th a t h e a n s w e r e d a ll qu est i on s t ruthful l y accordi n g t o hi s kn ow l edg e at t h e t i m e.

b. D i scussi on T h om a s’ s ar gu m en t on the ev a sion co n v ic tio n is e s s e n tia llytw o -fo ld

. F ir st, h e d id n o ts ig n th e 4 3 3 -A a n d t h e r e fo r e c a n n o t b e li a b le fo r a n y o f h is a t t o r n e y ’s
m i s r e presentati ons . Se c o nd, he c l ai m s t hathe di d no tkno w t he s t at us o f t he Wi l ey c as e a nd honest l y do ubt ed i t s out c om e. I n es se nce , h e c l ai m s t hat he had
n o du t y t o up da t e hi s i n i t i al , t ruthfuldi scl osures. The G o ve r nm e ntdi s put e s t he s e c l ai m s . It m ai nt ai ns t hate ve n i f t he f orm s t h em sel ves w ere t ruthful , the di scl osures i n the D ecem ber 2 , 2 002 , l et t erN o. 08- 30567

The Government also dispute s Thomas’s cont ention that he h ad no duty to update his 7 ini t ia l d is c losures once circu mstance s ch anged, b ut briefed no argu ment on that point. We nee d not r eachthis i ssue, however, b ecau se without it ther e remains suffici ent evidence in the recor d onwhich the jury coul d h ave fo undevasion

. 9 w ere un t ruthful , an d theref ore act s of

evasi on . T h e G overnm en tf u rt h er c ont ends t hat ob t ai ni ng t he bank l oan w as an ac tof ev as i on i nt ended t o c onc eal T h om as’ s r ecent r ecei pt of sub st an t i alasset s. Final l y, t h e G overnm en targu es th a t t h e false tax retu rn s th em selve s cou l d h a ve b ee n an attem p t t o h i d e a sse ts t o a voi d payi ng t he o ut st andi ng $407, 000 l i abi l i t y. 7 T h e evi den ce ad d u ce d at t ri alw as substan t i al

. B ased on t h e rec ord evi den ce, i n cl u di n g t h at r ecoun t ed ab ove— n am el y, T h om as’ s fai l u re t o di scl ose t h e Wi l ey m att er i n hi s 433-Aan d 43 3- B , i n cl u di n g i n t h e up da te d v e rs i on s of t he s e do c um e nt s s ubm i t t e d af t e rhi s c l i e nti n Wi l ey p rev a i l ed i n h er fi gh t t o en f orce a pri or s et t l em en tagainstone p art y, an d aft er t h e ot h er pa rt y proposed
a settl em en t t h a t w ou l d yiel d T h om a s h u n d red s of th ou sa n d s of d oll a rs; th e O IC ad den du m T h om as sub m i t t ed af t er t h ese dev el opm en t s t h at m ad e n o m en t i on of t h em ; t h e ban k l oan he secure d , g ivin g t h e i m pressi on t h at he w as shorton cash; an d h i s den i al of i n vol vem en tw i t h t h e Wi l ey m att er— a reasona bl e j u ry c o ul d c o nc l ude b e yo nd a r e as o nab l e do ubtt hatTho m as c o m m i t t e d e va s i o n. B

. D el i berat e I

gn oran ce Inst ruct i on 1. St andard o f

r evi ew and appl i c abl e l aw T h om as c l ai m s t her e w as i nsuf f i c i entfac t ualbas i s t o j ust i f y givi ng a de l ibe r at e i gno r anc e i ns t r uc t i o n. Suc h a n i ns t r uc t i o n i s j us t i f i e d wher e “ t he evi den ce s h ow s ( 1) subj ect i ve aw aren ess of a high proba bi l i t y of t h e exi st en ce of i l l egalc onductand ( 2) purpo se f ulc ont r i vance t o a voi d l ear ni ng of the i l l egal
con d u ct. ” Un i t ed S t ate s v. N guyen , 493 F. 3d 613, 619 ( 5t h C i r . 2007) (i nt er nal q u o ta tio n m a r k s a n d cit a tio n o m itt e d ). B e c a u s e T h o m a s o b je c te d to th is in s tr u c tio n a t t r ia l, th is co u r t r e v ie w s its p r o p r ie ty fo ra b u s e o f d is c r e tio n . I d.N o. 08- 30567

10 2. D i scussi on A s an i n i ti a lm a tter, the de l ib era te i gn ora n ce in s tr u c ti on pe rtain s to “k n o w le d g e ,” w h ic h is n o t a n e le m e n t o f e v a s io n . T h e in s tr u c tio n , th e r e fo r e , o n ly p r o p e r ly p e r t a in s to th e tw o c o u n t s o f f il in ga fa ls e ta x r e t u r n . T h o m a s ’s argu m en ti n hi s open i n g bri e f is cu rs o ry . H e argu es, again, t h at he hir ed Br a d l e yt o a v o i d t h e s e p r o b l e ms a n d t h e r e f o r e d i d n o ti n t e n d t o v i o l a t e t h e l a w. Th atm ot i vat i on and c onductdo notnegate th e j ust i f i c at i on f

orgivi ng a del iberate i gn oran ce i n st ructi on un der N guyen . 493 F

. 3d a t 6 19 (i n st ructi on appro pri at e w her e de fendan ts ubj ec t i vel y aw ar e o f hi gh pr obabi l i t y o f

i l l egal
c onductand engage d i n purpo sefu l cont r i vance t o a voi d l ear ni ng of t he i l l egal
co n d u ct). Fur t he r , s uf

f i c i e ntev i de nc e ex i s t e d t o sup po r tt he i ns t r uc t i o n. Fi r s t , t he evi den ce s u pp ort s a “ sub j ect i ve aw aren ess of a h i gh probab i l i t y of t h e exi st en ce of i l l eg a lcon d u ct. ” I

d. Tho m as ha d f

i r s t

- handkno w l e dg e t hathi s pe r s o nala nd corp ora te gr os s i nco m e e xc ee ded t he r ep orted gro ss i n com e. R eg a rd i n g co rp ora te l i abil i t i es, T h om as cl earl y kn ew of t h e Wi l ey case’ s set t l em en t an d of h i s f ees f or $647, 193, an am ount ex c ee di ng hi s f i r m ’ s r epo r t ed g r os s i nco m e o f $436, 850. B radl ey al so t est i f

i ed that Th om as t ol d hi m t h at Th om as kep ta run n i n g l og of t h e f i n an ci alst atus of

ea ch c a se ; th eref

ore, T h om as ha d a sen se of how m u ch
m on ey h i s c l i en t s ow ed, w h i ch sug gest s k n o w l edg e of hi s f i rm ’ s f i n an ces. T h o m a s m a d e ro u g h ly$ 3 1 0 ,0 0 0 in p e r s o n a l e x p e n d itu r es in 1 9 9 9
. H e v e r ylik e ly kn ew t h ese pu rchases an d vari ou s checks w ere greater t h an h i s r eported gross persona li n com e of

$66 , 575
. M oreover, in N ovem ber 199 9, T h om as subm i t t ed a f i nanci als t at em entt o Cro ss K eys bank on w hi c h he l i st ed hi s i nco m e a s $2 00 , 00 0. Thi s s t r o ngl y s ugg e s t e d t hatTho m as kne w b ot h hi s c o r po r at e a nd i ndi vi dualgr os s i nco m es w er e l ar gert han t hos e rep or t ed— t he “ subj ec t i ve awar e ne s s o f

a hi gh pr o ba bi l i t y o f t he e xi st enc e o f

i l l e ga lc o nduc t ” t hati s t he fir s t p r e r e q u is ite o f a d e lib e r a te ig n o r a n c e in s tr u c tio n . I d.N o. 08- 30567

11 The e vi de nc e a l s o s upp o r t s f i ndi ng t he s e c o nd p rereq ui s i t e , “ pur po s e f ul
c o n tri va n ce to a vo i d l ea rn i n g o f th e il l eg a lcon d u ct. ” I d. T h o m a s n o te s in h is
o w n b r ie f h is te s tim o n yth a t “ h e w a n te d to s ig n w h a te v e rM r . B r a d le yp la c e d in fron t of h i m . ” A l so, B ra d l ey w a s as k ed to discon ti n u e se n d i n g m on th l y re p orts t o T h om as, sugg est i n g del iberate i gn oran ce. Th om as’ s un cri t i calrel i an ce on B radl ey an d h i s assi st an t , H am i l t on , w as m ore t h an enou gh evi den ce t o sup port
a j ur y i ns t r uc t i o n f

o rde l ibe r at e i gno r anc e r e ga r di ng t he f i r s tt w o c o unt s o f

f i l i ng a fal s e t a x r e t u r n . Th e t r i a l c o u r t d i d n o t a b u s e i t s d i s c r e t i o n b y g i v i n g t he in s tr u c tio n . See Uni t e d S t at e s v. B i eganow s ki , 3 13 F

. 3d 264 , 290 –29 1 ( 5th C i r. 200 2) (f i n di n g n o abu se of

d iscreti on w h ere a “j u ry coul d cert ai n l y i n fer f rom t h[ e ] e vi de nc e t hat[ de fe nda nt ] c o ul d ha ve be e n aw ar e of t he pr e s e nc e of

f r aud , b u t in ste a d d e lib e ra te ly c los e d h is e y e s to it. ”). I I I . C ONC L US I ON F or t h e reas on s set forth ab ov e, th e j u d gm en t of th e dist ri ct co u r t is A F F IR M E D as t o al lcoun t s.