## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N os. 08

- 1138 & 08

- 1161 U NI T ED S TATE SOF A MERI CA, P la intif f-A pp ellee, v. R OO S EVELT P OW ELL an d W IL LI E H ARRIS, D efend a nts-A pp ella nts. Appeals from the United States District Court fo r the N o rthernDi stricto f Indian a, H amm ond D ivisi on. No . 06 C R 197

—Phi li p P. Si mon, Judge .
A RG UE D A PRI L 9, 2009

— D ECI DE D A UGUS T 7, 2009

Befo re M A NI ON, R OV NER, a nd W OO D , C ircu it Judges. M A NI ON, C ircu it Judge. A gra n d j u ry ind ict ed W illie H ar ris , a G ar y, Ind ian a, l a w ye r, an d R oo se ve lt P ow ell, w ho co l l ecte d proper ty taxes o n behal fo fLake County, I ndi an a, f o r the i r r o l e i n the s al e o ft wo pr o perties to the G ar y U rb an E n te rp ris e A ss oc iat ion
. A ju ry fou n d H ar ris an d Po wel l g ui l tyo fwi r e fr au d, c o ns pi r i ngt o de fr au d the Unite d Sta tes , and fil i ng a f al se tax r etur n. They appe al

. W e affi r m the i r c o nv i ct i o ns a nd Har r i s’ s se n-2 N os. 08

- 1138 & 08

- 1161 te nc e, b utv ac at e Po well ’s sente nc e an d r emand to the dist ri ct c ourtf orfurtherpro ceedi ngs.

I. I nd i ana’ s e nter pri se zone prog ra m was devi sed i n 198 3 i n an at tem pt to pro vi de i ncenti ves f orbusi nesse s t o l ocate orexpand in dist re sse d and bli ghted ar eas . J i m Landers & Dagney F aul k, In t h e Z one: A Loo k at Indiana’s Ent e rpr i s eZones , In d . Bus. Rev. , S um m er20 05, at7. Bus i nesse s i ns i de th e en te r pr i se z o ne r ec ei ve t ax i nc en ti ves i n exc h an ge f ordonati ng a perce ntage o fthe tax sa vin gs to th e loca l u rb an en te rp r i s e a ss oc iat ion
. Id

. at9. The Gary U rba n Enterpri se A sso ci at i on ( “GU EA ”) was su ch an ass ociation; bu siness es located w ithin t he Ga ry en te r pr i se z o ne c o nt ribut ed he av i l y t o i t i n l i eu o fpa y i ng inven tory tax es. H ow ever, d ue to a com binat ion of a l ar ge p ot o f m oneyatthe GU EA ’ s di sposal

— as m uch as five m i l l i on dol l ar s a ye ar

— a nd mi ni malo v e r s i g hto ver ho w the mo ne y wa s t o b e s pe nt, the GUEA a t t r a c t e d a c or ru p t a b u se of th e fu n d s. T h e G U E A w as u ltim at ely di ss o l ve d a fte r a n inv es ti g at i o n r ev ea l ed th atthe GU EA ’ s ex ec ut i ve di r ec to r, J oJ ua na M ee k s, was t r ea ting the GU EA as herper sonalbankacc ount. Pri orto i ts dem i se, however, the GU EA h ad em bar ked o n a pr oper typ urc ha sing sp r ee, acq uiring m an y prop erties i n G ary for the pu rpos e o fr edevel opi ng the m . The co nvi cti ons of d efe n d an ts R oo se ve lt P ow ell an d W illie H ar ris in th is case r esul ted fro m thei r ro l es i n the sal e oftw o proper ti es i n Gary to th e GU EA : a f or m ergr oce ryst or e l oca ted at 6 3 0 0 Mi l l e r, an d a v a c a ntb ui l di ngl o c a t e d a t7 6 8 Br o a dw ay.N os. 08

- 1138 & 08

- 1161 3

W e b a se our acc ount ofthe f act s on the e vidence prese nted 1 at t rial, tak en in the ligh t m ost f av or ab le to th e g o v ern m en t. U ni t ed Sta t es v. Hach , 16 2 F .3d 93 7, 94 2 (7t h C ir . 19 9 8 ). A . 6300 M i l l er 1 To war ds th e en d o f1 99 9, the o wner s o f6 30 0 M i l l er, who had l ong c eas ed oper ating the bui l ding on the pro perty as a g ro cer y s tor e, l et the m em ber s o fthe Lake County Coun c i lkno w tha tthe y i nt e nd e d t o do na t e the p r o per ty to a publ i c char i ty. W i l l i am S m i th, o ne o fthe counci l m en an d

— lat er

— a co - defe nd ant o fPowel l and H ar ri s, go t wi nd o fthe intende d do na ti o n a nd i ndi ca te d tha t he knew ofan o rg ani zati on that m i ght ha ve som e inter est i n the pr o pe r t y . Ha r r i s , a n a t t o r ne y who o wne d the l aw fi rm W i l l i e Harr i s & A sso ci ate s in Gary, then conta cted Geral d Bishop, o n e of the l aw yer s forthe own er s o f 63 00 M i l ler, a bout th e pr o per ty
. He t o l d Bi sh o p tha t th e G ary Hi stori cal and Cu ltural Society ( “H istori cal Society”), a l oca l nonpro fi t o rg ani zati on, would acce p t 6300 M i l l er as a d on at ion
. D h ar at h u la M illen d er , H ar ris ’s 8 4-y ea r-o ld aunt bym ar ri age , was the H i sto ri calS oci ety ’ s pre si dent, and H ar ri s was i ts att or ney. The papers f orthe tr ansfer w er e d raw n up and si gned at H ar ri s’ s l aw o ffi ce o n Decem ber27, 20 00. A t the ti m e o fthe donati on, 6300 M i l l er w as ap p ra i sed f or$3 97, 500 and had $37, 000 i n accr ued pr o pe r t y t a xe s , wh i c h the Hi s t o r i c a l S o c i e t y a s s ume d. H ar r i s, S m i th, a nd Po wel l the n a tt empte d t o s el l the pr o per ty
. In the s pr i ngo f2 00 1, Po wel l ca l l ed M ee k s atthe G U E A an d to ld h er ab ou t it . Po w ell kn ew h er fro m h is wor k at S RI, a c o m pan y hi r ed to r un the de l i nque nt4 N os. 08

- 1138 & 08

- 1161 proper ty tax s al e a uctions i n Lake County. Powel l had seen M ee k s at te nd s ev er ala uct i o ns o n b eh al fo fthe GU EA and, aft erfi nd i ng o ut wh at she was doi ng, o ffer ed to hel p her. H e eventual l y assi ste d M eek s in buyi ng “a l ot” o fp r o pe r t y f o r the GUEA

— i ncl ud in g a house he o w ned i n hi s daughter ’ s nam e. Pow ell an d Sm i th sho w ed M eek s the pro pertyat 63 00 M iller. P ow ell to l d h er th at th e p ro p er ty w as in th e pr o ce ss of beingt r an sfer r ed fr o m the c o unty t o the H i st o r i ca l S o ci ety ( whi chwas no t true) an d tha t sh e cou l d b uy i t o nc e the t r a ns fe r wa s c o mpl e t e d. Th ey then disc ussed a pu rc h ase pri ce. Powel l st ate d that they wa nt e d $ 4 5 0 , 0 0 0
. Aft e r Mee k s t o l d h i m t ha t the GUEA “cou ld n ’ t do that, ” the par ti es quick l y a gr eed o n a pr i ce o f$ 2 0 0 , 0 0 0
. P r o pe r t y t a xe s we r e n o tdi s c us s ed

— eve n though, bythi s point, the unp aid p ro pertyta xes had ballooned to $73,000. Pow elldire c t e d M eeks to p rep are a purchas e a gr eem ent i n t h e nam e o fthe H i sto ri cal S o ci ety a nd t o make o utthe c he ckt o tha t o r g an i za ti o n. A purchase ag re em ent was pre pa red and address ed to M i l lenderb uts i g ne d b y Har r i s o n b eh al fo fthe H i st o r i ca l S o ci ety . W hi l e th e ag r ee m en t ca l l ed f o r the GU EA t o pa y t he o ut st an di ngpr o per tyt ax es , no am ount was l i ste d. M ee ks ass um ed that taxes would not be a n i ss ue b ec au se the c o unty was t r an sfer r i ngthe proper ty to the His tor i calS oci ety
. Pr o per tyt ax es di d i nde ed tu r n o utt o b e a no n- i ss ue , b ut n otfor th e re as on M e e k s a ss u m ed . In ad d itio n to h is wo r kfor SRI, P o we l l a l s o o wne d a nd o pe r a t e d a c o mpa n y n a me d US R e s e a r c h C o n s u l t a n t s , I n c . ( “ USN os. 08

- 1138 & 08

- 1161 5 Resear ch”) , wh i ch had a c on tr act w i th Lake County to co l l e c tde l i nque ntp r o pe r t y t a xe s o n i t s b e ha l f

. On O c t o b e r 2 , L e e Chr i s t a k i s , a n a t t o r n e y wo r k i n gf o r US Re s e a r c h who a c t e d o n Po we l l ’ s i ns t r uc t i o ns , f i l e d a l aws ui t a g ains t the H i st o r i ca l So ci etyr eg ar di ngthe de l i nquent taxes o w ed on 6 30 0 M iller

. Despi te the f act that the b uil ding w as i n decen t sh ape and the GU EA was pay i ng$ 20 0, 00 0 to b uy i t i n ord er to us e i t as a t r aini ng ce nt er, the c o m p lai nt s ta te d tha t th e pr o per tywas i n a sta te ofdi sr epai r necess i tat i ng i ts dem ol i ti on in orderto be r est or ed to a tax- payi ng ba si s. H ar ri s per sonal l y a cce pte d s er vi ce o fthe c om p lai nto n b eh al fo fthe H i sto ri calS ocie ty thre e m i nutes a fterthe com pla i nt was f i l e d. An a g r e e d o r de r wa s e nt e r e d l a t e r tha tday re du ci ng al l pro pertyta xes due o n the pr oper ty to $15, 000, wh i ch H ar ri s pai d. The Lake County Treas urer

— w hose per m i ssi on US Resea rch w as re quir ed to se ek bef or e r eachi ng a set tl em ent with a t axpayer

— w as not aw ar e o fei therthe l aw sui t o r set tl em ent. On the sa m e day as the l aw sui t t o redu ce the pro perty ta xes , Po wel l pi ck ed up the $ 20 0, 00 0 ch ec kfr o m the G U E A
. Th e ch eck w as d ep osit ed i nt o H arris’ s law firm tr ust a ccount on Octo ber3. A t the sam e t i m e, H ar ri s wrot e a chec k fro m the tr ust ac c ou n t t o hi m sel f( postdate d O ctob er 4) for $50,000 an d de p osited i t into his l aw firm ’s busi ness acco unt. H e also w ro te a chec k t o Sm i th f or $75, 00 0, o ne t o Po wel l f o r $ 25, 00 0, a nd a no th ert o the H i sto ri calS oci etyf or$5 0, 000. Bank r ecords s how ed that Sm ith d ep os ite d h i s ch ec k s h or tly th er ea fte r, w h ile Pow ellde p osited his che ck abou t a w eek later.6 N os. 08

- 1138 & 08

- 1161

S e c t i o n 5 0 1 ( c ) ( 3 ) o ft i t l e 2 6 e x e mp t s fr o m fe d e r a l i n c o me 2 t ax at i on “[ c]or por at i ons , an d any c om m uni t y c he s t, fund, or fou nd atio n, org an ized an d op era ted exclu sive ly for re ligio u s, c haritabl e, s c i en t i fi c , t es t i ng for publ i c s afety, l i t er ar y, or ed u ca tio n a l p u rp o se s.” M i l l ender deposi ted the $5 0, 00 0 check i n the H i sto ri cal So ci ety ’ s ba nk ac count a week a fterPowel l

. A ccor ding to her tes ti m ony at tr i al, M i l l ender’ s e nti re und er sta nd i ng o f how the H i sto ri calS oci etyo btain ed the $50, 000 re ste d on a c on ve rsati on s he had w i th S m i th, duri ng wh i ch he had asked her if“ th ey” cou ld “borrow ” th e H istori cal Society’s 50 1( c) ( 3) st atus f o r $ 50 , 00 0 “t o g eta b ui l di ngf o r a t r aini ng 2 prog ra m fo r young peopl e. ” Altho ugh M i l l ender w as pr es en t atthe s ho r t m ee tingi n Har r i s’ s la w offi ce dur i ng w hi ch the docum ents donati ng the pro pertyto the H i sto r i ca l S o ci ety wer e co m pl et ed, a nd e ve n si g ne d the do c ume ntt r a ns fe r r i ngthe p r o pe r t y fr o m t he f o r m er gr oce ryst or e o w ners to the H i sto ri calSoci ety, she tes ti fi ed that she di d not know thatthe H i sto ri calS oci etyev er o wn e d 6 3 0 0 Mi l l e r . R a t he r , s h e s t a t e d th a ts h e h a d c o mple te tr us t i n herat torney Harr i s: “i fhe s ai d si gn i t, Iwould si g n i t. Iwoul dn’ t r ea d i t. Iwoul d s i g n i t, i fhe sa id it’s so m et h in g y ou ’re su p p os ed to d o.” M illen d er w as n otto ld t h at t h e H ist or ica l Soc iet y w ou ld have to own any proper ty i n or der t o re c eiv e the $5 0, 000. She tes ti fi ed that she w oul d ne ver have tak en ti tl e t o 6300 M i l l erbec ause the c ash- str apped H i sto ri calS oci etyhad diffi cul tymeet i nge xpe ns es f o r the o l d s ch o o l b ui l di ng i tc ur r e nt l y p o s s e s s e d. S he wa s s ur pr i s e d wh e n F BI age nts s how ed herthe $200 , 000 check fro m t h e G U E A toN os. 08

- 1138 & 08

- 1161 7 the His tor i calS oci ety ; she did notkno w abou t that che ck ei ther, or that Sm i th, Pow el l, and Harr i s had p oc ke ted $1 50 , 00 0 o fthe p roce eds

. M i l l en dera l so was ne ve r i nf or m ed abo ut the proper ty taxes o w ed on the pro p er ty orthe l aw sui t fi l ed aga i nst the H i sto ri calS ocie ty . Her si gnatur es both on the $200, 000 check and the deed tr ansfer rin g 6 30 0 M ille r to th e G U E A w er e fo rg ed . Sh e d id ackno w l edg e re cei vi ng and deposi ti ng the $5 0, 000 check on be hal fo fthe H i sto ri calS oci ety
.
B. 768 Br oadw ay The s ec o nd pr o per tys al e i nvol ve d i n thi s ca se was the sal e of the vacant bui l ding l oca ted at 768 Broadw ay to th e G UE A. H a r r i s p a i d $ 2 , 6 0 0 f o r th e p r o p e r t y i n S e p t e mber19 99. Because he was havi ng m ar i talprob lem s a t the t i m e, H ar ri s hi d his o w n er sh i p ofthe proper ty fro m hi s wi fe byt i tl i ngthe pr o per tyi n the na m e o fDo r o th y A rd, a cl ose f am i l y fri end . H arri s t ol d A rd he w oul d pay f orthe proper ty, i ts m ai ntenance, and any taxes
. I n A ugust 2 001, Powel l co n ta c ted M eek s a nd to l d her th at7 68 Br o adwaywas a va i l ab le, c l ai m i ngtha t hi s cl i en t w as Doro thy Ard, “a n e ld er l y wom an wh o w as tr yi ng to di ve sthe r se l fa nd mov e ba cks o uth. ” After vi ewi ngthe proper ty, M eek s a gain spoke wit h P ow el l, wh o sta ted A rd was l oo ki ng f orat lea st $60, 000. M eek s offer ed $40 , 000, and Pow el l sa i d he w oul d contactA rd . Po w el l cal l ed ba cka nd c l ai m ed th athe ha d s po k ent o Ard an d tha t sh e w ou ld se tt le for $5 1,5 00
. M ee ks ag re ed an d ga ve P ow ell a GU EA c he ckf or $5 1, 50 0 m ade o utt o Do r o th y Ard. The check w as deposi ted i nto H ar ri s’ s l aw firm busi ness8 N os. 08

- 1138 & 08

- 1161

ac c ou n t. P ow ell re c eiv ed $1 4,0 00 from H ar ri s f or th e s ale ofthe bui l ding. A t t ri al, A rd t esti fi ed that H ar ri s t ol d her i n 200 1 that he ha d r ec o nc i l ed wi thhi s w if e a nd a sk ed Ard t o s i g n a deed tra nsfer ring the pro pertybac k t o hi m . Based o n H a r r i s ’ s re p re se n ta tio n, A rd sign ed th e d ee d . H ar ris d id not tellA rd h e w as sell ing the prop erty; th e d eed that A rd si gned w as i n f act the dee d tra nsfer ring the pro pertyto the GU EA
. A rd al so did notkno w thatthe GU EA had pu rchas ed the proper ty f or$5 1, 500. H er si gnatur e o n bo th th e ch ec k fr o m th e GU EA an d th e dee ds fi l ed in the s t a t e a ud i t o r ’ s o ffi c e we r e f o r g e d. A j ury convi cted Harri s a nd Powel l under 18 U
. S. C. §§ 2 and 1343 ofwir e fra ud i n re l ati on to the sa l e o f63 00 M i l l er an d un d er 18 U
. S. C
. § 371 for con sp irin g to com m it theft ofgo ver nm ent fund s byr educing the pr oper ty taxes o n 6 3 0 0 Mi l l e r . I t al so f o un d P o we l l g ui l t y u nd e r 2 6 U. S
. C. § 7 20 6(1 ) for w illfu lly filin g a f a l s e t ax ret u rn d u e t o h is f ai l ure to re portthe i ncom e he re cei ved fro m the sal es o f6 30 0 M i l l era nd 7 68 Br o adway

. La st ly, th e j ur y c o nvic te d H ar ris u n d e r § 72 06 (1) fo r failin g t o re p or t h is i nc o m e fr o m the s al e o f7 68 Br o adw aya s a ca pi ta l g ain. F o r the i r se nt en ce s, Powel l re ce i ve d 3 7 m o nths ’ i m pr i so nm ent, wh i l e Harr i s r ece ived 55 m onths’ i m pri sonm ent. B ot h P ow ell an d H ar ris ap p ea l.

II. Ona pp e a l, b o th Po we l l a nd Ha r r i s p r e s e nts eve ra l ch all en ges to th eir con victions an d sent en ces. W e turnN os. 08

- 1138 & 08

- 1161 9

Har r i s s t a t e s i n hi s br i e ftha th e “ a do pt s a nd i nc or po r a t e s by 3 re fer en c e, withoutr epe at ing , the s t anda rd o fr evi ew an d the a rg umen to n the wi r e fr a ud i s s ue . . . a s pr e s e nt e d i n the App el l a n t ’ s B rief of co-ap p ellan t Po w ell
. ” B eca u se H arr is do es not provide any fu rther ar gum ent besi des hi s incor porat i o n o fP o w e l l ’s a r g u m e n t s, w e w i l l d i sc u ss o n l y P o w e l l ’s con ten tion s. f i rs t t o Po we l l ’ s c ha l l e ng e t o the s uffi c i e nc y o f the go vernm en t’ s e vi den ce suppo r tinghi s wi r e fr au d c o nv i ct i o n. 3 Ourr ev i ew o fa c ha l l en g e to th e su ffi ci en cyo fthe evi dence i s qui te defe re nti al

. W e exam i ne the ev i dence inth e ligh t m os t fa vo ra b le t o th e g ov er n m en t, U nited St at e s v. Us e ni, 5 16 F
. 3d 63 4, 6 46 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 8) , l o o k i ng o nl y a t whethe r e vi den ce e xi st s fro m whi ch“ an y ra ti onaltr i ero ff act coul d hav e found the es senti alel em ents ofthe cri m e beyo n d a r eas onabl e doubt. ” Hach , 162 F.3 d a t 9 42. That s tandard, byi tse l f, pre sents “a near l y insurm ountabl e hurdl e t o the defendant. ” Id

. ( quoti ng U ni t e d S t at e s v. Te ague, 9 56 F. 2d 1427, 14 33 ( 7th C ir. 1992)). The wire fr au d s ta tu te , 1 8 U. S
. C. § 1 34 3, pr o hibi ts the use o fthe i nter sta te w i re s in “ an y schem e o r ar ti fi ce t o defr au d, o r f o r o bt aini ngmone y o r pr o per ty bymean s o ff a l s e o r fr a u d u l e n tp r e t e n s e s , r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s , o r p r o mi se s. ” To co nv i ct a defen dan t o fwi r e fr au d, the g o ve r nm en t m ust prove thre e e l em ents: ( 1) the defe nd ant par ti ci pated i n a s chem e t o defr aud; ( 2) the defe nd ant i n te nd ed to de fr a ud ; a nd ( 3 ) a u s e o fa n i nt e r s t a t e wi r e i n further ance of t h e fra u d u len t s c h em e. U nited Sta tes v. Tu r n er, 55 1 F.3 d 65 7, 66 4 (7 th C ir. 20 08 ). Po w ell ar gu es th at th e e vi-10 N os. 08

- 1138 & 08

- 1161 dence w as i nsuffi ci ent t o supp or t a j ury fi nd i ng tha t he kno w i ngl y par ti ci pated i n a s chem e t o defr aud invo l vi ngthe us e o fthe inters ta te wi r es i n fur th er an ce o fthe schem e. W e ex ami ne first P o wel l ’ s cl ai m tha t th er e was no sc he m e to de fr au d. “ A sc he m e to de fr au d r equi r es ‘ th e m ak i ngo fa f al se s ta te m en t o r mate r i almis r epr es en ta ti o n, orthe concea lm en t of[ a] m ate ri alf act. ’ ” U ni t e d S t at e s v. Sloan , 49 2 F
. 3d 884, 89 0 ( 7th Ci r. 20 07) ( quoti ng U nited St at e s v. St ephe ns , 421 F.3d 5 03 , 507(7t h C ir. 20 05 )). Po w ell ass er ts that ther e w as no f al se sta tem ent or m at er i al m i sr epres entat i on be cause M i l l ender and th e Hist or i cal So ci etygot t h e be nefi t o fthe bar gain: S m i th pro m i sed M illen d er and th e H ist or ica l Soc iet y $ 50 ,00 0 if “t h ey ” c ou ld “b o r r o w” the Hi st o r i ca l S o ci ety ’ s 50 1( c) ( 3) s ta tu s, a nd M i l l ender and the H i sto ri calS oci etyr ecei ved $50 , 000. Thu s, Powel l co ntends, ther e was no fra ud per petra ted on the H i sto ri calS oci ety
. Pow el l ’ s a rgum ent i gno r e s the defendants’ f ai l ure to gi ve M i ll en d erthe who l e st o r y o n ho w the His tor i calS oci ety w as to re cei ve the $ 50, 000. N ei ther S m i th norH ar ri s no r Pow el l di sc los ed to M i l l ender that the His tor i calS oci ety n e e d e d t o t a k e t i t l e t o 6 3 0 0 Mi l l e r, a n d th e r e f o r e a s s u me al l the burdens o fo w ni ng tha t pr oper ty

— i ncl ud i ng a hefty proper ty tax bi l l

. N ordi d they tel l hert h at they w er e abl e t o s ell th e pr oper ty f or$2 00, 000, o r that they w er e g oi ng to ke ep near l y three

- quarte rs o fthe proceeds f orthem sel ves. These w er e s i gni fi cant o m i ssi ons: M i llen d er te st ified th at sh e w ou ld n ev er h av e t ak en tit le to 6 3 0 0 Mi l l e r b e c a us e the c a s h- s t r a pp e d Hi s t o r i calN os. 08

- 1138 & 08

- 1161 11 So ci etyco uld notev en m ee t th e expenses f orthe othe r b ui l di ngi tp o s s e s s e d. Pow el l cl ai m s that M i l l ender shoul d have know n that the His tor i calS oci etyow ned 6300 M i l l erbec ause she was p resen t at H arris’ s office w he n th e d ocu m en ts w ere executed t ra nsfer ring 6300 M i l l er to the H i sto ri calS oci ety
. Bu t the j ury re aso nabl y c ould h ave concl ud ed otherwis e. M i l l ender tes ti fi ed that she com ple tel y tr usted H arri s, w ho w as he r nep he w -i n-law a n d the H istori cal Society’s at to rn ey , an d th at sh e w ou ld sign w h at e v e r h e p u t in fro nt o fh erw i thout re adingit. S he al so re peatedl y deni ed eve r knowing th at the H i sto ri calS oci etyo w ned 6300 M i l l e r . A j ur y wa s e nt i t l e d to tak e Mi l l e nd e r a th e r wo r d. “[ I ] t i s no t o ur r o l e, when r ev i ewi ngthe s uffi ci en cyo fthe evi dence, to se cond-guess a j ury’ s cr edibi l i ty deter m i nati ons. ” U n i ted S ta tes v. B uc hm eier, 25 5 F
. 3d 415, 42 0 ( 7th C ir. 2001). M or eov er, ev en i fPowel l c ou l d show bey ond dispute that M i l len d er knew the His tor i calS oci etyo w ned 6300 M i l l er, he doe s no t co ntestthat n eit h er he no r Sm i th norPowel l di scl ose d to M i l l ender the s al e ofthe proper ty to the GU EA f or$2 00, 000. N ordoes h e c on test that they f a i l e d t o t e l l Mi l l e nd e r tha tthe y wo ul d p o c k e tthr eequa r te r s o fthe pr o ce eds fro m tha t sa l e. Tho se o m i ss i o ns ar e m ate ri al ; abs ent them , the i m poveri shed H i sto ri cal So c iet y s to o d t o g ain an ad d itio n al $ 15 0,0 00 in b ad ly n ee d ed fu n d s. Sig n ifica n t l y , Sm ith , Po w ell, an d H ar ris di d no t m er ely f ai l t o t el l M i l l en der abo utthe s al e an d th eir p ro fitin g from it. T h ey ac tiv ely c on c ea led th e s ale fro m her, go i n g so far a s t o f or ge her si gnatur e o n both12 N os. 08

- 1138 & 08

- 1161 th e $200,000 ch eck from th e G U E A an d the d eed trans ferri ng 6 3 0 0 Mi l l e r t o the GUEA s o tha ts he wo ul d ne ver kn ow ab ou t t h e t r a n s a c tio n . A s w e h av e s aid be for e, a failu re to d isc los e in for m at ion m a y c on st itu te frau d if th e “ om i ssi on [ i s] acc om panie d by a cts ofco nceal m en t.” U ni t e d S t a tes v. St ephe ns , 421 F.3d 503 , 507 (7th C ir. 2005). A rea so n ab le jur y c er ta in ly co u ld h av e c on c lu d ed th at is w hat o ccu rred her e. The go ver nm ent thus pres ented suffi ci ent e vi dence ofa schem e t o defr aud the H i sto ri cal So ci ety
. Bu t, Powel l as ser ts, ev en gr anti ng tha t there was a schem e to defr aud, he di d not know i ngl y par ti ci pate in i t. That ar gum ent was notr ai sed i n ei therof Powell ’ s Rul e 2 9 m o ti o ns i n the di st r i ctc o urt, w hich ch al l en g ed o nl y the suffi ci en cy ofthe evi dence supporting the sche m e t o defr aud. Pow el l has ther ef or e for feit ed it, and w e r evi ew on ly for p lain err or . U nited Sta tes v . G rov es , 47 0 F
. 3d 311, 3 2 4 ( 7 th Ci r . 2 0 0 6 )
. Und e r the p l ai n e r r o r s t a nd a r d, Pow el l m ust s how “that a ‘m ani festm i scar ri age o fj usti ce w i l l oc c u r ifhi s co nvi cti on i s no t r eve rs ed. ’ ” U nited Sta tes v. Hensley, ___ F
. 3d ___, 2009 W L 21786 50, at* 5 ( 7th Ci r . J ul y 2 3, 2 00 9) ( quo ting U n it ed States v. Irb y, 55 8 F
. 3d 65 1, 65 3 (7 th C ir. 20 0 9 ) )
. “P u t a n ot h er w ay , rev er sa l is w ar ra n ted o nl y i fthe re cor d i s devo i d ofev i dence poi nti ng to gui l t, o r i fthe evi dence on a k ey el em ent was so te n u ou s t h at a c on vic tio n w ou ld be sh oc kin g.” Id

. T h er e is n o s u c h lac k of e vid en c e i n t h i s c as e. P ow ell c h a ra c te riz es h is ro le in th e s ale of 63 00 M iller a s m er ely that ofa re ales tat e age n t re cei vi ng a com m i ssi on f or b rin gin g “ to ge th er a w i l lin g s elle r w ith a w illing bu ye r.”N os. 08

- 1138 & 08

- 1161 13

Rec al l thatthe pr ope rty r ec en t l y h ad bee n a ppra i s ed for 4 $3 97,000 a n d th at P ow ell ha d initially told M eek s that h is “cl ie nt” was l ooking for $450, 000. Bo th i n his reply bri efand at oral argum ent, Pow el l’ s att or- 5 ney expres sl y ad m it ted that, i fthe j ur y c hos e t o be l i eve Lake C ou nty T rea u rer P eg g y K ato n a ’s testim on y tha t Po w ell had no tg ot t e n he r r e q ui r e d a utho r i z a t i onf orthe pr op e r t y t ax re ductio n, the e vi denc e was s uffi c i en tf or a j ur y t o fi nd ag ain st him on cou nt t w o o f the ind ictm en t, the § 37 1 co u nt, w hich charged a c onspirac y based on the fraud ulent reductio n o f th e p ro p er ty ta xe s o w ed o n 63 0 0 M ill er . Such a chara cter i zati on, h ow ever, does notsquar e with the e vi dence ofPowel l ’ s wil l i ngness to drop m or e than 50% offthe a s k i ngp r i c e ( a nd a pp r a i s e d v a l ue ) o f 63 00 M i l l ero n the da y o fthe s al e, s ince i t i s hi g hl y un- 4 l i kel y that a l egi ti m ate r eales tat e a gent w ould set tl e s o quick l y o n such a re du ctio n. N ordoes i t m esh with Pow el l ’ s r ol e in th e fra ud ule nt l aw sui t fi l ed on be hal fo f Lake County to re du ce the p ro pertyta xes o w ed on 6 300 M i ller, w hi ch he doe s no t chal l enge i n thi s co urt. That 5 l aws ui t was a fr au d o n the c o ur t. Po wel l o bt aine d the pr o per tyt ax r edu ct i o n b y f al se l y r epr es en ti ngt o the j ud ge thro ugh hi s a tto rneythat63 00 M i l l erneeded to be de mol i s he d a nd b y f a i l i ngt o t e l l the j udg e tha tthe p r o pe r ty wa s b e i ngs o l d t hes am edayf or$2 00, 000

— ana m o unt eas i l y s uffi ci ent t o sat i sfy the b ack proper ty taxes
. A r eal est ate ag ent r ecei vi ng a l egi ti m ate com m i ssi on does not, o n t h e s a m e d ay as th e s ale , orc h es tr at e a d ish on es t la w su it that re sul ts i n an un author i zed reducti on o fpro pertyta xes to the t u n e of $58, 000. A j ury w as ther ef or e e nti tl ed to r ej ec t Po wel l ’ s r ea l

- es ta te
- ag en t g l o ss t o hi s i nv o l ve m en t14 N os. 08

- 1138 & 08

- 1161 inth e s ale of 63 00 M iller. Se eU ni t e d S t at e s v. H um phreys , 46 8 F
. 3d 10 51 , 1 05 4 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 6) ( “[ A]l te r na ti ve e xp lan at ion s a lon e , e ve n if p lau sib le, d o n otord in ar ily o ve r co m e th e defend an t’ s bur deni n c ha l l en g i ngthe su ffici ency ofthe evi dence. ” ( quoti ng Un i t e d S t a t e s v. R o m ero , 57 F. 3d 565, 570 (7th Cir. 1995))). Pow el l di sputes that the pro pertyta x re du cti on had an y r el at i o ns hi p t o the s ch eme t o d efr au d, b uttha t ar g um enti s a no n- st ar te r . A r ea so nabl e j ur y c o ul d ha ve c o ncl ude d tha t a ny t a x s a v i ng s a dv a nc e d the s c he m e by g o i ngs tr ai g htt o the de fen dan ts ’ b o ttom l i ne . W hi l e th e pur ch as e ag r ee m en t ca l l ed f o r the GUEA to pa y the outst anding proper ty taxes , n o am ount w as l i ste d. M eek s tes ti fi ed that the defendants had gi ven her the i m press i on that proper ty taxes would not be a n i ssue because th ey had tol d her the His tor i calS oci etywas in t h e proce ss of o bt aini ngthe pro per tyf r o m the co unty . M ee k s’ s te st i m o ny is b ac ke d by t h e f a c t t h at H ar ris , an d n otth e G U E A , pa id th e re m ain in g $ 15 ,00 0 d u e a fte r th e fra u d u len t la w su it re du ced the proper ty taxes
. Because the proper ty tax r e d u c tio n allow ed th e s c h em er s t o ke ep m or e o f th eir illgo tt en ga in s, it w as p ar t a n d p ar c el o ft h e o ve ra ll s c he me t o de fr a ud

. Po wel l, ho wev er, c o m pares hi s l o t to tha t o fthe de fen dan t i n U ni t e d St at e s v. Rahs epar i an , 231 F.3d 125 7 (10th C ir. 20 00 )
. Li k e Po wel l, the de fen d an t i n Rahs epar i an w as als o c on vic te d on circ u m st an tia l e v i d e n c e. B u t t h at is wher e th e si m i l ar i tye nds

. In Rahs epar i an , the d efend an t’s parti ci pati on in the i l l ega l sche m e w as l i m i ted to acts that, b y t h em se lve s, w er e in n oc en t: d o in g t h e b an kin g for h is sons, wh o ra n the fra ud ule nt te l em ar ket i ng sc hem e a tN os. 08

- 1138 & 08

- 1161 15 iss u e t h er e, an d p u rc h a sin g “ lea d sh ee ts ” fo r th em , a c om m on an d p er fec tly leg al w ay for te lem ar ke ti n g bu sin es se s t o id en ti fy p ot en tia l cu st om er s. T h e T en th C irc u it hel d that those act i vi ti es, i n an d ofthem sel ves, di d not su p p or t a n in fer en c e t h at th e d efe n d an t k n ew th at h is sons’ busi ness w as defr auding i ts c u sto m er s. 23 1 F
. 3d at 1263
. I n c o nt r as t, th e l a ws u i tfi l e d b y P o we l l ’ s c o mpa n y, US Re se ar ch, whi chc au se d a s ubs ta nt i alr edu ct i o n o fthe p ro pertyta xes o w ed, was i nherent l y fra ud ule nt. I t r epresente d that 6 300 M i l l erneeded to be dem ol i shed w hen in fa c t itwas bei ng so l d that dayf ora substa nti al l y di sco unt ed $2 00 , 00 0. As we ha ve di sc us se d abo ve , the law su it furt he red the ove rallsch e m e by l eavin g m ore m oneyf orthe defe nd ants to divi de am ongs t th em se lves

. C on sid er in g t h a t th e e vid en c e s h ow ed th at P ow ell hi m se l fr ec ei ve d $ 25 , 00 0 fr o m the s al e o f6 30 0 M i l l er, the j ury coul d rea sonab l y infe r that Pow el l had knowle dge o f, a nd i nt en ded to furthe r, the s ch eme t o de fr au d the H i sto ri calS oci ety
. Pow ell also chal l enges the use- of

- the- w i re s e l em ent o f his w ire fraud conv ict ion. H e clai m s tha t the re w as insu ffi ci ent pr oo fthatthe w i re s were used i n further ance o f the fra ud ule nt sc h em e. A gain, Powel l ’ s f ai l ure to ra i se th i s a r g u me n ti n h i s R u l e 2 9 m o t i o n s me a n s th a twe re vie w on ly for p lain err or . G rov es , 47 0 F
. 3d at 324. Ourr ec en t dec isi o n in U nited Sta tes v. Turn er, 55 1 F
. 3d 657 ( 7 th Ci r . 2 0 0 8 ) , s pe l l s o ut the c ur r e nt s t a t e o f the l aw on the use- of

- the- w i re s e l em ent: The m ai l

- and w i re - fra ud st atute s a re noti nten d ed to re ach al l fra ud s but onl y th ose i n w hi ch a m ai l i ng o r16 N os. 08

- 1138 & 08

- 1161

u se of an int er st at e w ire is p ar t of th e s c h em e. Schm uck v. U nited Sta tes , 4 8 9 U. S
. 7 0 5 , 7 1 0 , 1 0 9 S
. Ct
. 1 4 4 3 , 1 0 3 L. Ed

. 2d 73 4 ( 1989 )
. The use of the m ai l or w i re need not b e an in d isp en sa b le p ar t of th e fra u d t o s at isfy th e “ in further ance of” el em ent of the offense; i t nee d onl y “ be i nci dent to an e sse nti alparto fthe schem e . . . ora ste p in [t h e] pl ot. ” Id . at 7 10 -11 (alt er at ion in o rig in al) (in te r n a l q u ot at ion m ar ks & cit at ion om itt ed ). “In o th e r wo r d s , th e s u c c e s s o fth e s c h e me mu s ti n s o me m eas ure depend o n the m ai l i ng [ orw ire tr ansm i ssi on]
. ” U n i t e d S ta tes v. Sew a rd, 27 2 F
. 3d 831, 83 6 ( 7th Cir
. 20 01 ). T h e defe nd ant hi m sel fneed not p er so n ally ca u se th e m ailin g or u se of th e w ire ; i t is en o ug h th at th e us e o f m ai l o r wi r e “wi l l f o l l o w i n the or dinar y c ou rs e ofbusi ness, o r w here such use can re as on ab ly b e fo re se en , eve n th ou gh n otac t u ally i ntended.” P ereira v . U nited Sta tes , 347 U
. S. 1, 8-9, 74 S. Ct. 35 8, 9 8 L. Ed. 435 ( 1954 ) ( “W here o ne does an a ct w ith kn ow led ge th at th e u se of th e m ails w ill follo w in the o rdi naryco urse o fbusi ness, o r w here such use can re as on ab ly b e fo r e se en , eve n th ou gh n otac tu ally inten d ed , then he ‘cau ses’ the m ail s to be us ed

. ”); U ni t e d S t at e s v. H i ckok, 7 7 F.3d 992, 1004 (7th C ir. 1996). T h e m ailin g or u se of th e w ire s n ee d n otits elf c on ta in f al se orfra ud ule nt m ate ri al ; a “r outine o r i nnocent” m ai l i ng o r use o fthe w i re can supp ly thi s e l em ent o f th e offen se, as long as th e u se of the m ailor w ire is part of t h e e x ec u tio n of th e s c h em e. Schm uck, 48 9 U.S. at 714- 15, 10 9 S
. Ct. 14 43 ; U nite d State s v. B rocksm ith , 99 1 F.2d 136 3, 1368 ( 7th Cir. 1993). Turn er, 551 F.3d at 666 ( intern al footn ote om itted ).N os. 08

- 1138 & 08

- 1161 17 To s at i sfy the us e- o f

- th e- wi r es e l ementi n th i s ca se , the go ve rn m en t relied on th e tra n sfe r of th e $20 0, 0 0 0 sa le proce eds o f63 00 M i l l erfro m the GU EA ’ s ba nk thr ough an i nter sta te w i re to H ar ri s’ s t rustaccount. A s the o bj ect o fth e s c h e me t o d e fr a u d th e Hi s t o r i c a l S o c i e t y wa s th e m on ey , the actual r ecei pt ofthe fund s into H ar ri s’ s t rust ac c ou n t w as an es se n tia l p a rtof th e s c h em e. See Turn er, 551 F. 3d at 668. Pow el l ar gues, however, thatthe $200 , 000 w i re tr ansferi s ins uffi ci ent t o supp or t hi s co nvi cti on be ca us e th e fr au d was a l r ea dy co m pl et ed when th e m on ey w as re cei ved by the b ank. H ar ri s’ s l aw fi rm tr ust acco unt w as cre dit ed w i th $2 00, 000 on Octob er 3, 20 01, w h ile th e in te rs ta te w ire tra n sfe r d id n otoc c u r u n til O ctob er 5. T o su p p ort th at argu m en t, Pow ellrel ies prim ari l y o n U ni t e d S t at e s v. Kann , 323 U .S. 88 (19 4 4 ). Kann h eld that the use o fi nter sta te m eans to col l ect a check does not vi ol ate § 1341 bec ause the s chem e was co m ple te as soo n as the deposi tory b ank pai d the chec k: The b an k s whi chc as he d o r c r edi te d the c he ck s, b eing ho l der s i n due c o ur se , wer e en ti tl ed to co l l ec t fr o m the dr awe e ba nki n e ac h c as e an d the dr awe r ha d no defe nse t o paym ent. The s c h em e in each case had r ea ch ed fr ui ti o n. The pe r so ns i nt en ded to r ec ei ve the m oneyhad re cei ved it i rr evo cabl y. Itw as i m m ate ri alto th em, o r t o a ny co ns um m at i o n o f th e sc he m e, ho w the bank w h ich pai d orcr edi ted the checkwould col l ect fr o m the dr awe e ba nk. I t ca nno t be s ai d tha t th e m ai l i ngs in quest ion were f orthe pu rpos e o f executi ng the sche m e, as the sta tute re quir es. 32 3 U .S. at 9 4; s eeal s o Unit e d S t at e s v. M aze, 414 U
. S. 395 (1974 ).18 N os. 08

- 1138 & 08

- 1161 W e p r e v i o us l y c o ns i de r e d Kann i n U ni t e d S t at e s v. Franks , 309 F
. 3 d 9 7 7( 7 th Ci r . 2 0 0 2 ) , a c a s e i nv o l v i nga me di cal cl i ni c worke r w ho sto l e checks fro m hercl i ni c and deposite d th em in h er p er so n al b an k a c c ou n t. T h er e w e h eld th at th e ba n k ’s u se of int erstate cou riers to forw ard the c hecks for co l l ecti on was suffi ci ent forpurposes o f § 1 3 4 1
. We di s t i ngui s he d Kann thusl y: Kann predates the U ni f or m Com m er ci al Code, w h i ch m ak es i t ea syf o r a c us to m er ’ s ba nkt o r ev er se the cre d i t i fthe i nstr um ent c annot be c ol l ecte d. Fr anks deposi ted the check s into her p ersonalacc ount. Even i fshe drew offthe em bezz l ed fund s pro m ptl y, her own fund s r em ai ned and coul d have be en debi ted to cove r the l oss , had the checks notbee n s ent o ut o f sta te and pai d i n due cours e. Thi s m ade i nter sta te tr anspor tat i on e sse nti alto the schem e’ s s uccess . F r a nks , 3 09 F. 3d at 978. That s am e di stincti on a l so appli es here

. W hi l e Harr i s’ s t rustacc ou n t m ay have been c re d ite d w ith th e $ 20 0,0 00 im m ed iat ely , t h e ba n k e as ily c ou ld h av e w ith d ra w n su c h p ro vis ion al c re d it u n til it rec eiv ed th e $ 20 0,0 00 w ire tra n sfe r. See I nd

. C ode §§ 26

- 1- 4- 20 1( a) , 2 6-1-4- 21 4( a)
. Had the b an kdo ne s o , the de fen d a nt s wo u l d h a v e f a i l e d t o fu l l y e x e c u t e th e i r s c h e me to enri ch them sel ves at the His tor i calS ocie ty’s expense. ( Po wel l c er ta i nl y woul d no t ha ve b en efi tt ed bec au se he di d no t c a s h hi s c he c k un t i l we l l a ft e r the t r a ns fe r . ) Thus, whi l e th e defen dan ts i n Kann may ha ve r ec ei ved th e fund s “ i rr evo cabl y, ” 3 23 U
. S. at94 , H ar ri s a nd h is c osc h em er s d id n otu n til a fterthe w i re tr ansfero fthe fund s. A j ury cou ld therefor e hav e r eas onabl y c oncl ud ed thatN os. 08

- 1138 & 08

- 1161 19

a us e o fthe wi r es was i n furthe r an ce o fthe s ch eme a nd fi nd the use- of

- the- w i re s e l em ent s ati sfi ed on that ba si s. W e n ex t t u r n to th e d efe n d an ts ’ ch alle n ge s t o th e s u ffici ency ofthe evi dence su p port i ng the i r tax co nvi cti ons. P ow ell c on te st s h is c on vic tio n for fa ilin g t o ac c u ra te ly re porthi s t ota l i ncom e o n hi s 2 001 tax r etur n i n vi ol ati on o f26 U .S.C. § 7206 ( 1)
. H e cl ai m s that there was not enough evi dence ofwil l fulne ss to convi ct hi m . Because P ow el l did not ra i se any chal l enge to that convi cti on in ei thero fhi s Ru l e 29 m oti ons, o ur r evi ew o fthi s i ssue i s for p lain err or on ly. G rov es , 47 0 F
. 3d at 324. Recal l that, u n d e r th a ts t a n d a r d , th e r e c o r d n e e d o nl y c o n t a i n s o me evi dence poin tin g t o gui l t; as l ong as the r eco rd i s no t c o mp l e t e l y d e v o i d o fs u c h e v i d e n c e , w e w i l l a ffi r m. Ir by, 55 8 F
. 3d at 653. W e co ncl ud e that the re cor d c ontains suffi ci ent e vi dence ofPowel l ’ s guil t on the § 7 206( 1) co unt to cl earthatl ow hur dl e. F o r c o nv i ct i o n, § 72 06 ( 1) r equi r es tha t a defen dan t “[ w ] i l l fully m ake [ ] and subscribe[ ] any re turn, st ate m ent, oro therdocum ent, wh i ch co ntai ns o r is ver i fi ed by a w ri tte n decl ar ati on t h at i t i s m ade under the penal ti es o fpe rj ur y, a nd whi chhe do es no t be l i ev e to b e tr ue a nd cor re ct a s t o eve rym ate ri alm att er . ” See a lso U nited Sta tes v. P ree, 40 8 F
. 3d 855, 86 5- 66 ( 7th Ci r. 20 05)
. In other w or ds, a co nvi cti on “ und erse cti on 7 206( 1) r equi re s proof that: (1) a p e r s o n m ad e or subs cribed to a fed eral tax retu rn w hi ch he v er i fi ed as tr ue; ( 2) the re turn was fa lse as to a m aterial m atter; ( 3) the d efend an t signed the retu rn w il lfully and know in g i t w as false; and ( 4) the retu rn conta i ned a wri tte n decl ar ati on that i t w as m ade under20 N os. 08

- 1138 & 08

- 1161 the penal ty ofperj ury. ” U nited Sta tes v. P resbitero , 569 F
. 3d 691, 700 (7th C ir. 2009). H er e, i t i s undis pu ted thatPowel l ’ s 2 001 re turn, wh i ch he si gned und erpenal ty of p erj u ry, di d not r epor t e i ther the $ 25, 000 Pow el l r ecei ved fro m the sal e o f63 00 M i l l ero r the $ 14, 000 he r ecei ve d fr om the sal e o f76 8 Bro adw ay. W hi l e th e r etur n w as pr epa r ed byhi s ac co unt an t, the ac co unt an t te st i fi ed th ats he r el i ed upo n hercl i en ts f o r the in for m ati on s he pl aced i n the re turns. Fa i l ure to supp ly an acc ountant w i th acc urat e info rm ati on i s e vi dence of w illfu ln es s. Se eUs e ni, 51 6 F
. 3d at 650. M or eo ver, the j ury, w he n con side ring Pow ell ’s inc om e om issi on, had before i t the ev i dence ofthe defe nd ants’ frau d ule nt sc hem e t o profi t o ffo fthe sal e o f63 00 M i l l er . Becau se t he $2 5, 000 was o bt aine d thr o ug h fr au d, Po well ha d a s tr o ng in c en tiv e t o r e f r ain from rep or tin g t h e in c om e. See U nited Sta tes v. Y tem , 255 F. 3d 394, 39 7 ( 7th Ci r. 20 01) ( “[ T]he f act that i l l ega l i ncom e i s t axabl e i s widely k n ow n, ev en am ong l ay p eop le. ”). Inarg u in g a ga in st th e gov er n m en t’s ev id en c e o f w illfu lness, Powel l hi ghl i ghts the f act that he fi l ed an am ended r etur n in 2 00 4, a fte r a c i vi l a udit, th at i nc l ude d the $3 9, 00 0, the a g g r eg at e am ou nt he r ec ei ve d fr o m the fra ud

. H owever, f orw hat i t was worth, Powel l was abl e t o pu t tha te v i de nc e i n fr o nto fthe j ur y . And the p r o b a t i ve va l ue o fi t w as m i ni m alb ec au se i t o nl y r ai se d the que st i o n o fwhy th e i nf o r m atio n was no t i nc l ude d i n the firs t p lac e. U nited Sta tes v . Ro ss , 626 F.2d 77, 81 ( 9th Cir. 1980 ). T he cr i ti calti m e- fra m e fordeter m i ni ng wil l fulne ss is w he n Pow ell signed th e retu rn, not tw o ye a r s after-N os. 08

- 1138 & 08

- 1161 21

w ar d s. S ee U n it ed St ates v. M cClain , 93 4 F
. 2d 822, 83 5 ( 7th C ir. 19 91 ); s e e al s o Unit e d S t at e s v. Radtke, 41 5 F
. 3d 826, 84 0- 41 (8th C ir. 2005). Po wel l a l so make s m ucho fthe f ac t t ha t hi s ac co unt an t l ost the i nfo rm ati on that he had pr ovi ded her abou t h is 2001 in c o me, a nd tha ta s a r e s ul ts he c o ul d n o tv e r i fy f or cer tain that he h ad f ai l ed to pro vi de herthe i nfo rm ati on about the $ 39, 000 he r ecei ved from H ar ri s forthe sal e o f 6300 M i l l erand 76 8 B ro ad w ay. Yet that f act w as al so p re se n te d to th e jur y, an d th e jur y s till c o n vic te d P ow ell. I n l i ghto fthe e v i de nc e o fwi l l fulne s s we h a v e di s c us s e d, the j ury’ s guil ty ve rd ict on the § 7206 ( 1) co unt cannot b e s er iou sly ch alle n ge d ; i t c er ta in ly w as n ot“s h oc kin g.” Ir by, 558 F.3d at 653

. W e the refore w il l not distu rb P ow ell’s co n vic tio n for fa ilin g t o a c c u ra te ly re p o rth is to ta l i nc o m e o n h i s 20 01 t ax r etur n. H arris al so ch all en ges h is convicti o n un d er § 7206(1). Lik e Po w el l, H ar ri s f ai l ed to ra i se thi s i ssue i n hi s Rul e 2 9 m o t i o n i n the di s t r i c tc o ur t, s o o urr e v i e w a g a i n i s f or p l a i n e r r o r on ly. G rov es , 4 70 F
. 3d at3 24
. Har r i s was c o nvi ct ed f o r wi l lful l y f ai l i ngt o r epo r t o n h i s 20 01 r etur n, as a c api tal gai n, the $ 34, 90 0 i n pr o fi t he made fr o m the sal e o f76 8 Bro adw ay. H ar ri s cl ai m s that hi s co nvi cti on s h o u l d b e r e v e r s e d b e c a u s e h e r e p o r t e d th a ti n c o me

—j ust not as a c ap i talga i n. A t t ri al, H ar ri s intro du ced thr ough his w ife

— w ho di d t h e acco unti ng work f orhi s l aw fi rm

— ac c ou n tin g sch ed u les

. T h os e s c h ed u les , su p p os ed ly used to pre pare H ar ri s’ s 2 001 taxes , co ntai ned en tr ies f or each deposi t into the l aw fi rm ’ s b ank a ccount. One of th e en tr i es was the $ 51 , 50 0 ch eck fr o m the GUEA f o r the22 N os. 08

- 1138 & 08

- 1161

sa l e o f7 68 Br o adway

. Be ca us e the t o ta l i nc o m e fr o m the d ep o si ts l i st ed o n the s ch edu l es matc he d the a m o unt H ar ris rep or t e d f or to ta l inc om e o n Sc h ed u le C , H ar ris cl ai m s that he re port ed the i nc om e fro m the sal e o f76 8 Br o a dwa y o n S c he du l e C. The g ove r nm en t, ho wev er, pr es en te d e vi den ce c as ting dou b t on thatcl ai m . The acc ounti ng sc hedu l es up on w hi ch H ar ri s r el i ed w er e ti m e- sta m ped M ar ch 31, 20 07, o ne wee ka fte r the supe r se di ngi ndi ct m en t th ata dded th e tax co unt aga i nst H ar ri s w as hand ed dow n. H ar ri s di d not p rovide them to the govern m en t un tilsh ortly before tr i al

— w hi ch w as al m osta yea r aftert h e grand j ury had subpoenaed the m . M or eov er, atthe ti m e they were subp oe n ae d , H ar ris , citin g a n u n sp ec ified “c om p u te r c ra sh ,” t o l d the g r a nd j ur y tha th e di d n o th a v e a ny p aper s s up port i ng h is 2001 ta x re turn. S uch ti m i ng o fthe schedule s’ di sc l o su r e, c o upl ed wi ththe f ac t th at th ey wer e unde r the con trol of H arris’ s w ife

— w ho had a str ong m oti ve to do c t o r the r e c o r ds

— c as t d ou b t on th eir relia b ility

. See U ni t e d S t at e s v. Sp ano , 421 F.3d 599 , 604 (7th C ir. 2005). M o r eo ve r, the s ch edu l es wer e i na cc ur at e. De spi te the tes ti m ony ofH ar ri s’ s w i fe that the e ntri es on the sc hedu l es w o ul d m at chthe a ctua l de po si ts made i nt o the l aw f irm ban k accou nt, they did not. In fact, they w ere off b y m ore th an$ 20 0, 00 0. Tha t su bs ta nt i aldi sc r epanc y b etwee n the re cor d o f actual deposi ts and the ac counti ng sc hedu l es re i nfo rce s the i nfe re nce th at theywere al ter ed. S i nce thos e s chedules were the o nl y e vi dence H ar ris o ffer ed to sh ow tha t he r epo r te d the i nc o m e fr o m the s al e, the j ury reason ably cou ld h ave ch osen to disbelieve H arris’ sN os. 08

- 1138 & 08

- 1161 23

Har r i s ’ s br i e fs t a tes tha ti t“ a do pt s a nd i nc or po r a t e s by 6 re fer en c e, withoutr epe at i ng, the s t and ard ofr evi ew an d the argum ent on the coerc ed j ury i ss ue” as w el l as “on the c onspirac y t o c om m i tthe ftf or m [ s i c ] the H i s t or i c al So c i ety a nd fro m Lake C o u n t y i s s u e , a s p r e s e n t e d i n th e Ap p e l l a n t ’ s Br i e f o fc oap p ellan t Po w ell.” Po w ell, ho w e v e r, did no t ap p eal th ose i s s ues . Harr i s ha s the re f or e i nc or por at ed two non- ex i stent ar gum e n t s . Be c a u s e Ha r r i s do e s n o t p r e s e n t a n y a r g u me n tor c i t e any l eg al author i t y i n h i s own br i efonthos e i s s ues , he h a s w a iv ed a p p el la te re v ie w o f th em . Us e ni, 516 F. 3d at 658 ( “It is not the obli gati on of thi s court to re se arch and const ruct the le gal ar gum ents open to par tie s, es pecial ly wh en they are re p re se n te d b y co u n se l.” ). cl ai m tha t he r epo r te d the i nc om e fro m the s al e. At the very least, H arris has fai led to esta bli sh plain error. W e tu r n n o w to the s en te nc i ngi ss ue s rais ed bythe defen dan ts
. Bo thHar r i s an d Po wel l que st i o n the a m o unt 6 o f l o ss us ed to co m put e th ei r se nt en ce s. Aft er g r o upi ng th ei r c o nv i ct i o ns o n c o unto ne ( th e wi r e fr au d offen se ) a nd cou nt tw o (consp iring to com m it theft ofL ake C ou nt y’s funds b y r edu cingthe pr o perty taxe s o n 6 30 0 M i l l er ) , the cour t e nhanced both Harr i s’ s a nd Powel l ’ s s entence s tw elv e leve ls ba se d on a loss of$ 20 8,0 00
. See U. S
. S
. G. § 2 B1. 1( b) ( 1) ( G). T h e dist ri ct c ourtr eached that l oss am ount bya d ding $150 , 000 ( the l oss to the H i sto ri cal So ci ety, o r al ternati vel y the ga i n to the defe nd ants, fro m the di ver ted pro ceeds ofthe sal e o f63 00 M i l l er ) to $58, 000, the m oneythe defe nd ants sto l e fro m L ak e C ounty by i l l ega l l y r educing the pr oper ty taxe s owed o n 630 0 M i l l er fro m $7 3, 000 to $15, 000.24 N os. 08

- 1138 & 08

- 1161 “W e r evi ew a dist ri ct c ou rt’ s l oss cal cul ati ons, wh i ch ne e d o nl y b e ‘ a r e a s o nab l e e s t i mat e o fthe l o s s , ’ U. S
. S
. G. § 2 B1. 1 cm t. 3( C), f orcl earer ro r. ” U n it ed S tate s v. Watts , 535 F. 3d 650, 65 8 ( 7th Ci r. 20 08). W e se e no cl earer ro r h er e. T h e G U E A p aid $ 20 0,0 00 fo r 63 00 M iller, so th e “ fair m ar ketvalue o fthe proper ty unlaw fully t ake n” was at lea st t h at a m ou n t. U .S.S.G . § 2B 1.1 ap p lica tio nn ot e 3 (C )(i) (20 07 ); s e eal s o Unit e d S ta tes v . Radzis ze wski, 474 F
. 3d 480, 48 7 (7 th C ir. 20 07 ); U ni t e d S t at e s v. Har dy, 289 F. 3d 608, 61 3 ( 9th Ci r . 2 002). T ha t a m o unti s o ff se t bythe $ 50 , 00 0 th e H ist or ica l So c iet y re c eiv ed , see U
. S. S. G. § 2 B1. 1 a pp l i cati on no te 3(E) ( i ) ( 20 07 ) , l ea ving$ 15 0, 00 0 as the l o ss t o the H i st o r i ca l S o ci ety fr o m the s al e o r, a l te r na ti ve l y, the am ount the defendants unl aw fully g ai ned. S i m i l ar l y, Lak e Cou nty r ec ei ve d $ 15 , 00 0 i n pr o per tyt ax es when, abse nt the defendants’ dup l i ci tous l aw sui t, i t was ent i tl ed t o $ 7 3 , 0 0 0 , a d i ffe r e n c e o f$ 5 8 , 0 0 0
. Ad d i n gth o s e t wo am ounts, as the dist ri ct c ourtdi d, yi el ds $208 , 000, ther eby j us tifying th e ap p li cation of U
. S. S. G
. § 2B 1.1(b)(1)( G ). W e r ej e c tthe de fe nd a nt s ’ a r g ume nt s f o ra l e s s e r l oss . Pow el l and H ar ri s a rgue that, byi ncl ud i n g both the l oss to the Hi st o r i ca l S o ci ety a nd the l oss to La k e Cou nty, the distri ct c ourti m perm i ssibl y doubl e- counted. But that ar gum ent i gnor es the f act that tw o separ ate enti ti es suffer ed dist i nct l oss es, as em bodi ed by the tw o c ou n ts ofco nvi cti on. In co unt one, the H i sto ri calS oci etyl ost ( orthe defe nd ants i m proper l y gain ed ) $1 50, 000 because , a s the o wne r o f the pr o pe r t y ( a t l e a s t o n pa pe r ) , i t was en ti tl ed to the ful l pr o ce eds fr o m the s al e. And i n c o unt two , the c o unty l o st$ 58 , 000 in pr o per tyt ax r ev en ue that coul d have be en pai d fr om the proce eds o f the sal e.N os. 08

- 1138 & 08

- 1161 25 Those a re di ffer ent l oss es, and the dist ri ct c ourtwas r i g h tt o i n c l u d e b o th o fth e m. I n a v ar iat ion o n thei r fi rs t a rgum ent, the defe nd ants al so ar gue that the di str i ct cou rt sho uld have r educed the a mou nto fp r o pe r t y t a xe s p a y ab l e fr o m i t s c a l c ula

ti on of th e l o ss t o the Hi st o r i ca l S o ci ety, o r the g ain t o the defe nd ants, fro m the sal e o f63 00 M i l l er . A ccor ding to Po wel l a nd Har r i s, ha d th e H i st o r i ca l S o ci ety r ec ei ve d the fu ll $2 00 ,00 0, it w ou ld h av e h a d to p ay th e $ 73 ,00 0 in pr o pe r t y t a xe s ; thu s , the y c l a i m t ha tthe $ 7 3 , 000 i n pr o per ty taxes o ught t o have been ded ucted fro m the l oss . A l ternati vel y, bec ause H ar ri s pai d $15, 000 i n proper ty taxes , they cl ai m that am ount s houl d have be en deducted fr o m the $ 15 0, 00 0 th e distr i ctc o ur t ca l cul at ed as the defen dan ts ’ g ain. Ne i the r Ha r r i s n o r P o we l l c i t e anya utho r i t y t o s up po r t r edu cinge i th erthe l o ss o r g ain tha t way, a nd the c o mm e nt a r y t o the Gui de l i ne s do n o tp r o v i de f o r tha tty pe of re d u c tio n . See U. S
. S
. G. § 2 B1
. 1 a pp l i c a t i o n no t e 3 ( D)

- ( E) ( 20 07 )
. M o r eo ve r, Har r i s’ s $1 5, 00 0 pay m en t o fthe p ro p erty taxes was to furtherthe fra ud ule nt sc hem e. W e ha ve he l d tha t su che xp ens es i n fur th er an ce o fthe u n law fu l ac tiv ity n ee d n o t b e e x c lu d ed from th e g ain
. See U nite d State s v. M arvin , 28 F. 3d 663, 664-65 (7th Cir. 1994). F ur th er m o r e, the l o ss to the Hi st o r i ca l S o ci ety i s undi m i ni shed b y the pro pertyta xes be cause the purchas e a gr eemen tb e t we e n the GUEA a nd the Hi s t o r i c a l S o c i e ty express l y obl i gat ed the GU EA , notthe H i st or i calS oci ety, to pay anyo utstan d i ng pro pertyta xes. The defendants’ argu m ent s co nc erni ngthe r edu ct i o n o fthe l o ss a m o unt ther ef or e hav e no m er i t.26 N os. 08

- 1138 & 08

- 1161 H ar ri s r ai ses two other obj ecti ons to hi s s entence
. Fi rs t, he c hal l enges hi s tw o- l eve l enhancem ent und er U. S
. S
. G. § 3 C1. 1 f o r o b s t r u c t i o n o fj u s t i c e . We r e v i e w a d ist ric t c ou rt ’s fa c tu al fin d in gs s u p p or tin g a § 3C 1.1 en h an c em en t fo r c lea r er ro r. U ni t e d S t at e s v. St r ode, 55 2 F. 3d 63 0, 63 5 ( 7th Ci r. 20 09)
. The di str i ct c ourt ’ s f actual fi ndi ng s wi l l st an d a s l o nga s th eya r e “pl au sibl e i n l i g ht o fthe r e c o r d in i t s e nt i r e ty. ” U nite d State s v. White, 36 8 F.3d 911 , 916 (7th C ir. 2004). H ar ris ’s o b st ru c tio n en h an c em en t w as ba se d on h is f a i l u r e t o c o mply wi th a g r a n d j u r y s u b p o e n a r e q u e s t i ng copi es ofta x re turns and accounti ng sc h edule s use d to prepar e the r etur ns. In Septe m ber20 06, FBIag ents ser ved H arri s’ s l aw fi rm with the subpoena. In a s i gned st ate
m en t, H ar r i s r es po nde d to th e su bpo en a by cla i m i ng that the l aw fi rm di d not hav e the accounti ng sc hedu l es du e t o a “ com pu tercr ash. ” How eve r, on M ar ch 31, 20 07, o ne wee ka fte r the g r an d j ur y r eturn ed a su per ce di ng ind ictm en t ad d ing a tax c o u nt against H arris, H arris’ s wi fe, who was the l aw fi r m ’ s ac co unt an t, pr i nt ed o utthe ac c ou n tin g s c h ed u les . A t t ria l, sh e t es tifie d th at H ar r is neverga ve her the s ub p oena and that she di d not k now that the gran d j ury h ad sub p oen aed the law firm ’s acco unti ng sc hedu l es unti l afterthe i nd i ctm ent. Acco r di ngt o the c o m m en ta r y t o the o bs truct i o n e nhancem ent, “co nceal i ng . . . evi dence that is m ate ri alto an offic ial in ve st iga tio n ” i s o b st ru c tio n . U .S.S.G . § 3C 1.1 appli cati on not e 4 ( d) ( 2007 )
. The di str i ct cou rt co ncl ud ed th at H arris’ s beh avior w as j us t tha t. W e agree. A t the very l ea st, i t was o bs truct i ve forHar r i s to f ai l t o t el l the o neN os. 08

- 1138 & 08

- 1161 27 perso n i n hi s l aw fi rm wh o ha d c on tr olo verthe subpoenaed docum ents

— his w ife

— ab o ut w ha t do cument s th e s ub p oen a requ ested , since th ose d ocu m en ts w ere m ate ri alto the i nvest i gat i on. M oreo ver, the com pu ter s’ f or tui tous r ec ov er y in ti m e forH ar ri s t o use the accounti ng sc hed ule s in hi s o w n defe nse s tr ongl y s ugges ts that H ar ri s’ s “ com pu tercr ash” excuse w as unw or thy o f b elie f. Th e d ist ric t c ou rtd id n otco m m it c lea r er ro r in applying the o bstr ucti on e nhancem ent. H ar r i s’ s se co nd o bj ec ti o n t o hi s se nt en ce i s whathe vi ew s a s a n unw ar ra nted dis pari ty between hi s s entence (55 m on th s) an d P ow ell’s (3 7 m on th s). H ar ris c laim s t h eir conduct w as si m i l ar and there f or e w ar ra nted sim i l ar se n te n c es . W e rej ec t t h at a r g u m en t, firs t, be c au se it is w ro ng o n the l aw , U n ited St ates v. O m ole, 52 3 F
. 3d 691, 700 ( 7th Ci r. 20 08) ( “This co urt re fuses to vi ew the disc re p an c y b et w ee n se n t en c es of co d efe n d an ts as a b as is for ch al l e n gin g a se n te n c e.” ), an d , sec on d , bec au se it is w ro ng o n the f acts
. In m any ways, H ar ri s’ s co nd uct was m o r e c ulp able tha n P ow ell ’s. Th e m ost im p ortan t d ifferen ce b etwee n the t wo i s th atHar r i s was the o ne who abused hi s pos i ti on a s the H i sto ri calS oci ety ’ s l aw yerto p ull off th e sale of6300 M ill er. Ind eed , i t w as H arris’ s own l aw fi rm and i ts tr ust a cco u n t th at w as the l ocus of th e fra u d . M or eo ve r, as w e h av e d isc u ss ed a b o v e , H ar ris o bs tructe d j us ti ce b y f ai l i ngt o tur n o ve r do cument s th e gr and j ury had or dered hi m to pro du c e. Give n thos e si gni fi cant di ffer ences, we see no er ro r in t h e d i str i ct c o u r t ’ s d ec isio n to m et e o u t a st iffer se n te n c e t o H ar ris th an to P ow ell.28 N os. 08

- 1138 & 08

- 1161 W e turn now to Pow el l ’ s final chall enge to hi s s entence
. H e c l a i ms tha tthe di s t r i c tc o ur ti mpr o pe r l y di s r e g ar ded h is a rg u m en ts at s e n t en c in g for len ien c y b as ed on h is advanced age and heal th pro bl em s. Rega rdi ng tho se ar gum ents, the dist ri ct cour t sta ted the f ol l owing w h en i t pr onounced se ntence: Ispeci fi cal l y hav e t ake n i nto con si derat i on e ver ythi ngtha t M r . M i l ne r ha s br o ug htt o my a tt en ti o n. T h e d efe n d an t’s ag e, h is lac k of c rim in al h ist or y, h is heal th probl em s. Those ar e cer tainl y f actors that wei g h g r eatl y on m e an d b ea r o n the hi st o r ya nd c h ar ac te ri s t i c s o f th e D efe n d an t, but th ey a re, o f cou rse, a lso tak en in to acc o un t by th e gu ideli nes th em selves

. I t i s no t cl earwh at the di str i ct c ou rtm eant by that l ast phrase that w e h ave em phasi zed; i t a pp ear s t o be a m i ss t a t e men to fthe l aw . Al tho ugh the Gu i de l i ne s do ac c ou n t fo r a d efe n d a n t’s cr im in al h ist or y, seeU. S
. S
. G. §§ 4A 1. 1, 4A1. 2, theydo not f acto r i n a d efe n d ant’ s a ge and heal th. Ins tead, the Gui del i nes l i st advanced age and se ri ous he al th co nd i ti ons as gr ounds f ordepartur e, th o ug h in l i m ited ci r cumst an ce s: the c o m m en ta r yt o the Gu i del i nes sta tes that, al though age and he al th ar e “not o r d inaril y rel evan t in det erm ining w he th er a dep artu re m ay b e w a r ran ted , ” the y m ay be a “reaso n to d ep art dow nw ard” w hen a defe nd ant i s e i ther“e l derl y” or “se ri ously i nfi rm . ” U.S
. S. G. §§ 5H 1. 1, 5H1. 4. Of cour se, post- B o o k er, tho se departure s ar e “ obs ol ete
. ” U nited Sta tes v. Johns on , 42 7 F
. 3d 423, 42 6 ( 7th Ci r. 20 05)
. W hi l e th e d ist ric t c ou rtca n st ill us e th em fo r gu id an c e, U nited Sta tes v. Fi l ipi ak, 4 66 F
. 3d 582, 5 84 (7th Ci r . 2 00 6) , i t ha s th eN os. 08

- 1138 & 08

- 1161 29

The d is tr ic t court did st ate lat er on during it s prono unce- 7 m en tofthe s en t en c e that, “[ o] n the othe r i s s ues ofthe defen dant ’ s ag e, an d hi s l ac k ofc ri m i nalhi s t or y, I j us t d on’ tthi nk thatthos e ar e en ou g h t o pe rs uade m e thata non gui del i ne s en t en c e i s appr opr i at e i n thi s c as e. ” However, tha tam bi guous s t at em en t, whi l e c om i ng c l os ert o a c or re c tunde rs t andi ng o f th e c o u r t ’s § 3 5 5 3 (a ) a u th o r i t y , d o e s n o tm i t i g a t e th e c o u r t ’s p rev iou s statem en ts, w hich ap p ear ed to rely on a n inv alid g round to rej ectPow el l’ s argum ents
. A rem and i s ther ef ore n ec es sa ry . Cf

. U n ited S tates v . S m ith , 562 F. 3d 866, 874- 76 ( 7th Cir

. 2009) ( finding no rem and nece ss ary w here itw as cl ear from con tex t that th e d istrict j u d g e d id no t rely on his p re v io u s m iss ta te m en t o f th e la w w h en p ro n o u n ci n g sen te n ce ). au th o r i tyt o c o ns i derPo wel l ’ s phy si ca l i m pai r m en ts a nd advanced age w hen deter m i ni ng the sente nce i t be lieve s ap p ro p ria te u n d e r 1 8 U .S.C . § 35 53 (a). U ni t e d S t at e s v. M illet, 510 F.3d 668 , 680 (7th C ir. 2007). Because the di str i ct cour t a pp ear ed to m i sapprehend i ts author i ty und er§ 3553 ( a) , a re m and i s a pp ro pri ate to gi ve the di str i ctc o ur ta n o pp o r t un i t y t o c l a r i fy i t s r ul i ng . On 7 r emand, the di st r i ctc o ur t sh o uld co ns i derPo wel l ’ s ar g um en ts abo uthi s a d vance d a g e an d i nfi r m he al thi n l i g ht of the factors out line d i n 18 U
. S. C
. § 3553(a).

III
. The go ver nm ent pr ese nted suffi ci ent e vi dence that P o we l l a n d H a r r i s kn o win g l y p a r t i c i p a t e d i n a s c h e me to d efra ud the H i sto ri calS oci etythati nvol ved the use of the intersta te w ires, an d both Pow ell ’s and H arris’ s30 N os. 08

- 1138 & 08

- 1161 convi cti ons und er26 U
. S. C. § 7 206(1) survi ve re vi ew f or p lain err or . Fu rt h er m or e, th e d ist ric t c ou rtp r o p er ly c a l c ul a t e d the l o s s a mou ntu s e d t o de t e r mi ne b o th H ar ri s’ s a nd Powel l ’ s s entence s by add i ng the $1 50, 000 pr o c e e ds the de fe nd a nt s pu r l o i ne d fr o m the s a l e o f63 00 M i l l erto the $58, 000 Lake County l ostin proper ty taxes as a resu lt ofthe frau d ulen t law su it. Th e d istri ct cou rt als o c or re c tly en h an c ed H ar ris ’s s en te n c e b as ed on h is f ai l ur e to c o m pl y wi ththe g r an d j ur y s ubpo en a r equi r i ng hi m t o ha nd o ve r account i ngs ch edu l es mate r i alt o the g o v e r n me n t ’ s i n v e s t i g a t i o n o fh i s 2 0 0 1 t a x r e t u r n s . And th e d ispa rity betw een H arris’ s sen ten ce an d Pow ell ’s wa s wa r r a nt e d. W e the r e f o r e A FFIRM the defe nd ants’ con vic ti o ns a nd Har r i s’ s se nt en ce . Howev er, b ec au se the d istri ct cou rt ap p eared to i m p rop erly rej ect P ow ell ’s ar g um en ts f o r l en i en cyb as ed o n h is a dva nc ed ag e an d p oo r heal th, we V ACATE a nd R EMA ND P o we l l ’ s s e nt e nce f o r fur th erpr o ce eding s co ns i st en t wi ththi s o pi ni o n.

8- 7- 09