FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V EN T H C IR C U IT April 7, 2008 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK

Honora ble Eug ene E . Siler, J r., United States Circuit J udg e for the Six th Circuit, sit ting * by desig nation. [ P U B L I S H ]

IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ N o. 05- 1445 9

____ ____ ____ _ D.C. Dock etNo. 0 4- 20 06 4- CR-J EM UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Plaintiff-Appellee, ve rs us DA VI D L EE EL LI SO R, D ef en dant- Appe llant.

____ ____ ____ __ Appeal f rom the United State s District Court fo r the S outhe rnD istri ct

of F lor ida

_____________ (April 7, 2008) Before TJO FL AT , F AYand SIL ER , Circuit Judges

. *2

TJO FL AT , C ircuit Judg e: D av id L ee E lli sor

w as c onvi ct ed

by aj ur y on e igh t c ount s of

m ai l f ra ud f or se lli ng t ic ke ts t o th ousands of sc hool ch ildre n and the ir pare nts w ho e xpe ct ed

to attend a “ Christm as From Ar oundthe W orld” extravaganza. T he district court se nte nc ed E lli sor to 87 m onths’ im

pr iso nm en t and o rd er ed

r es tit uti on o f $38, 509. 09. I n th is a

ppe al , E lli sor

c ont es ts the f

ac tua l su ppor t f or his c onvi ct ion s, se ve ra l e vid en tiary

r uli ngs, and v ar iou s a spe ct s of his se nte nc ing . W e af

fi rm the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s j udgm en t i n a ll re spe ct s. Part I of this opi nion sets forth the fac tual and procedural background . In part I I, w e de te rm ine that the dis tr ic t c ourt di d no t a buse it s di sc re tio n inm ak ing certa in evidenti ary

rulings andfind that there w as sufficient evidence for a re as o n ab l e ju ry t o co n v i ct El l i s o r o n al l co un t s . P ar tII I d i s p o s es o f E l l i s o r’s cl ai m s of se nte nc ing e rr or . P ar

t I V c onc lud es . I. A. InAugus t 20 03, D av id L ee E lli sor appr oa ch ed

Mi ch ae l S ch ott , the ow ne r of Party Cater ers, to offer his com pany the sole concession rights to a sho w c alled

“ Christm as From

Ar oundthe W orld” (the “ Christm as show”) in exchange f or an up- fr ont paym en t of

$1, 400. A cc or din g to E lli sor , the sho ww as spo nsor ed by the3

University

of Miam i art departm ent and would feature C hristm as gifts and disp lay pie ce s br ough t by

a tte ndi ng d ipl om at s. P ar ty Cate re r’ s c onc es sio n r igh ts w oul d inc lud e the r igh t t o se rv e al co hol and f orm al dinne rs to the dip lom at s, and $ 5 lunches to s tudents who visited the sho w. Schott acce pted the bus iness propo sal in the belief that the oppo rtunity would be a lucrative one, particularly since E lli sor pr om ise d hi m

tw en ty pe rc en t of

the sho w ’ s to ta l r ev enue s “ to i nsur e [h e w oul d] not

los e a thi ng. ” N otw ith standi ng h is r ec ei pt o f the up- fr ont paym en t, E lli sor m ad e fo llo w -u

p vi sit s to P ar

ty Cate re rs ove r the e nsui ng m onths t o a sk f or m or e m one y . U lti m at el y , E lli sor r ec ei ve d atot al of

$7, 842 fr om

P ar ty Cate re rs in the f orm of c as h, c he ck s, and c harg es to its O ff ic e D ep ot c or

por at e ac co unt

f or sundry e xpe nse s th at

E lli sor c la im ed w er e re la te d to the sho w , inc lud ing the paym en t of

E lli sor ’ s r en ta l c ar

bil l and e xpe nse s in curr ed in as se m bli ng and m ai li ng ou t i nv it at io ns forth e sh ow. InS ep te m

be r 2003 , E lli sor

be gan m ai lin g th e inv itatio n m at er ia ls t o te ac he rs a t pu

bli c an d pr ivate sc hool s inMi am i- D ad e Co unty , ur gin g th em to take the ir stu de nts on “ ana m az ing f ie ld tri p” to se e the Ch ri stm as sho w . T he inv itatio n m aterials indicated that the show wa s spon sored by the University

of Miam i art d e p art me n tan di n c l u d e dan Ap r i l 1 0 , 2 0 0 3 l e t t e r f r o m Wa l tH i n e s , ap a rt - t i me le ct ur er in the U niv er sity

of Mi am i art

de partm en t, pur

porte dly c onf irm ing theEllisor incorporated the Univer sity Diplomatic Trust Acc ount as a for -prof it corporation 1 on September 17, 2003, a nd listed himself and his friend, Ma rk B . Weiser, as the of

fice rs. The corpor ation’s listed business addre ss was the home a ddress of Ang ela Saiza B ailey , Ellisor’s then-g irlfriend. Ellisor also ope ned an a ccount f or the Unive rsity

Diplomatic Trust Acc ount at Ba nk of Amer ica on Oc tober 10, 2003. Ellisor and Weiser w ere the only signatories on the a c c ount. 4 univ ersity ’ s spon sorship of the show. H ines’ s m ailbox at the un iversity wa s listed as the return m ailing address. T he m aterials also claim ed that the show wa s presented by

the International Diplom atic Corps of W ashingt on, D .C. (of which Ellisor w as identified as an Am bassador-at-L arge and dip lom atic liaison), as par t of the I nte rn at ion al A m

ba ssa dor s F or ei gn E m

ba ssy T our . T he c ost

of the sho w w as $10 pe r stu de nt, m ad e pay ab le to the U niv er sity D ipl om at ic T ru st A cc ount , 1
an d th e da te s of

the sho ww er e lis te d a s D ec em be r 3, 4, and 5 , 200 3, f

ro m 9:0 0 a.m . to 3: 00 p.m . E xc ite d a bout the opp ortun ity

f or the ir stu de nts to atte nd wha t the inv itatio n m at er ia ls d es cr ibe d a s a“ onc e in a li fe tim e oppo rt

uni ty ” to m ee t 28 f

or ei gn am bassadors, view C hristm as trees dec orated w ith ornam ents from other countries and cultural art exhibits, and rece ive thou sands of do llars’ worth of sponsored g i f t s , t e a c h e r s f

r o m a p p r o x i ma t e l y 2 3 s c h o o l s f i l l e do u tr e g i s t r a t i o n f

o rms re se rv ing ti ck et s f

or stu de nts r an gin g f

ro m the thi rd to the f if th g ra de . O ve r the ne xt c oupl e of

m onths, se ve ra l t ea ch er s te le phon ed E lli sor to le ar n m or e ab out

the de ta ils of the sho w . A cc or din g to te ac he rs w ho t es tif ie d a t tri al , E lli sor

m ad e theAs cap ture d b y a r ec o rd i n g m ad e b y

th e F ed er al Bure auo f Inv es t i gat i o no f am es s age 2 that E lli so r l e ft

on on e te a c he r’ s h ome ans we ri ngma c hin e , E lli so r p ro mis e d th at: The e vent will be dec orate d sort of Ha rry Potter-ish. Every

child will have a se at. There will be the international exhi bits with t heir tre es, g ifts underne ath them. Eac h child will ge t ten tickets. They will fill t hem out at school. They will bring the m and put th e m in

the bigtum

ble r w e have . We wi ll b e g ivi ngawa y pr e se nts the entire time the children a re the re. The re’ s a question now with the Homela nd Security whether the childre n will be allowed to bringin their lunch. They may have to l e ave it o n th e bu s o r t he y are g oin gto b ri ngin a

c ate re r a nd a llo w you

to have the option of eatinginside with the cate rer or the c oncession stands. . . . T h e r e i s a l s o a

c o n t i nu o u s mu s i c c ar o l c o n c e rtg o i n go n . Itw i l l b e l o v e l y. 5 show soun d even m ore enticing, prom ising that there w ouldbe Christm as trees an d de co ratio ns d onate d by the Ch ri stm as P al ac e (a

loc al bus ine ss s el lin g Christm as m erchandise), “ [f] our hund red som e lights and characters, like Harry Potter, going around m ixing with the kids in th e cr owd,” a hot Christm as lunch, an ed uc at ion al sc av en ge r hunt , and e ve n li ve r ei nde er . S om e of the pare nts a lso 2 be cam e int er es te d ina tte ndi ng a ft er le ar nin g th at a dul ts c oul d part ic ipate in the ra ff le and w in p ri ze s. H av ing se cure d th e ne ce ssary pe rm iss ionf

ro m the sc hool s an d th e pare nts , the te ac he rs c oll ec te d $1 0 pe r tic ke t f ro m the stu de nts and p ar en ts, co nsol idate d th e m one y

int o c he ck s is sue d by

the sc hool s and m ad e pay ab le to the Un i v er s i t y Di p l o m at i c T ru s tAc co u n t , a n dm ai l ed th e c h ec k s t o Wal tHi n es ’s m ai lbo x a t the U niv er sity of Mi am i. T he sc hool s a lso arr an ge d and p ai d f or se parate bus tr an spor

ta tio n f or the stu de nts . The m aterials listed Novem ber 4, 2003 , a s the date on which paym ent wasWhil e some schools we re a ble to send in pay

ment befor e the de adline, other s were not. 3 Ellisor assured the latter that they could still send in their money .

6 due. O n Novem

ber 6, Ellisor checked into a suite at the D oubl etree Hotel, wher e 3 he stay ed f or the ne xt tw o w ee ks. T ha t sam e day , he r eque ste d th at E nte rp ri se Ren t-a -Carde li ve r a l ux ury au to m ob il e –

fir st a Ja gu ar, an d t he n aCad il la c De Vil le – t o t he Doubl etree Ho te l, an d re nt edth e carfora week . Som e tim e af

ter sending in th eir pay

m ents, the teac hers rec eived packages co nta ini ng r af

fl e tic ke ts t o be dis tr ibu te d to the stu de nts . T he pa ck ag es a lso co nta ine d m at er ia ls a dve rt isi ng $ 20 t ic ke ts t o a tte nd tw o e ve nin g sh ow s of

“ Ch ri stm as F ro m

A ro und the W or ld, ” fr om 4:0 0 to 8:3 0 p. m . and f

ro m 8:3 0 to 10: 30 p . m . Aglo ssy

f lie r ide nti fi ed

the Ch ri stm as P al ac e as the pr es en te r of the ev en ing sho w s, and g av e spe ci al thanks to the U niv er sity of Mi am i art

de partm en t, the Ci ty of Mi am i P oli ce D ep ar

tm en t, the Ci ty

of Mi am i F ir e D ep ar

tm en t, and the Doubletree H otel Coconut Grove. Anum ber of Christm as Palac e brochures w ere al so e nc los ed . Me an w hil e, E lli sor

m et w iththe c onve nti on c en te r m an ag er a t the Co co nut G ro ve E xpo Ce nte r, G re gor y Wri ght . E lli sor

tol d Wri ght

that the U niv er sity

of Miam i had hired him

to put o n the Christm as show because “ he wa s a great pr om ote r. ” H e re que ste d th e co nve nti on c en te r fr om D ec em be r 1 th ro ugh 5, 200 3,7

inc lud ing se t- up and b re ak -d ow n day s. Wri ght gave E lli sor

ar en ta l a ppl ic at ionto com plete and explained the requirem ents to ho ld a show at the convention center: paym ent of a use fe e (including an in itial deposi t and a larger , f inal paym ent), an assem bly perm it and floor plan approv al from the fire departm ent, an occupation al lic en se f ro m the Ci ty of Mi am i f inanc ia l de partm en t, ac er tif ic at e of ins ur an ce , and police security . He em

phasized that an actual certif icate of insurance w as ne ces sa ry ; an in su ran ce b in de r wou ldbe in ad equa te . O n S ep te m

be r 15, E lli sor

sub m itt ed

ar en ta l a ppl ic at ion , tog ethe r w itha $2,500 depo sit check provided b y the Miam i Motorcy cle Show . Ellisor then subm itted a proposed con tract on N ovem ber 10, three day s after

the Novem

ber 7 de ad lin e; non ethe le ss, Wri ght did not e nf or ce the de ad lin e. O n N ove m be r 13, Ellisor gave Wright a check for $5, 000 to ward the outstand ing us e fe e, but that ch ec k bo unc ed

due to nons uf

fi ci en t f unds . W ri ght the n in fo rm ed

E lli sor that he would no lo nger acce pt checks as paym ent; Ellisor rea ssured Wright that he had pl en ty of m on ey

co m in g i n. On Nov em

be r 19 , Elli so r ga ve Wrig ht $1 ,05 0 i n c as h. Inthe day s le ad ing up t o th e show , E lli sor c ont inu ed

to co nf irm that the s h o w wo u l dp ro ce edas p l an n ed . El l i s o r a s k ed o n e t ea ch ert o g i v e t h e s ch o o l ’s check for $1, 060 d irectly to the conventi on center. O n Dec em ber 1, the teacher
w en t t o th e co nve nti on c en te r an d a tte m pte d to giv e the c he ck

to G re gor

y Wri ght ,These stude nts were not the only people whom Ellisor aske d to bringitems to the show. 4 El lis or re pe ate d th is r a ff

le -t ic ke ts- fo r- or

name nts lin e to a

no the r gro up of

stu de nts . H e a lso tol d another teac her that chape rones c ould rec eive f ree admission if they

broug ht “a f

ree g ift for a ho me le ss c hil d. ” F ina lly , E lli so r a sk e d a mus ic te a c he r t o b ri nga

g ro up of he r s tud e nts to perf orm holiday

song s at the show, and pr omised that a state- of-the- art sound sy stem would be provided. 8 w ho r ef use d to a cc ep t i t. E lli sor

the n pi ck ed

up the c he ck

in pe rs on f

ro m the school o n Dec em

ber 2, assuring th e students th at the show w ouldproceed as planne d. H e al so t old

the stu de nts that the y

w oul d r ec ei ve e xtr a ra ff

le ti ck et s if the y w oul d m ak e or

na m en ts f ro m dif fe re nt c ountri es and b ri ng the m to the conventio n center. A lso on De cem ber 2, Ellisor w ent to anoth er e lem entary 4 school to pick up a check for $2,260. Concerned by Ellisor’ s dish eveled ap pe ar an ce , the sc hool pr inc ipa l so ught a ssuranc e that the sho ww oul d li ve up t o the stu de nts ’ e xpe ct at ion s. E lli sor r ep lie d th at

it w oul d. L at er

that day , Wri ght ch ec ke d onthe c onve nti on c en te r an d sawno s et -u p, no C hr istm as tr ee s or de co ratio ns, no t ab le s, c ha ir s, sound s y ste m , or art . T he re w er e no co m m uni catio ns f

ro m any a m ba ssa dor s or

any se curi ty pe rs onne l. Wri ght

did rece ive a fa x of an insurance binder, but that wa s inadequate to satis fy the rental co nt ract ’s requi rem en t o f an in su ran ce p ol ic y . On Dec em

be r 3, 2 00 3, t he fir st da y

sch edul edforth e Ch ris tm as sh ow, E lli sor w ro te and c as he d ac he ck to him se lf

f or an am ount

that w as e ff

ec tiv el y the re m ai nin g ba lanc e of

the U niv er sity

D ipl om at ic T ru st A cc ount , w ri tin g “pr es en ts”Three of the schools we re a ble to put stop-pay

ment order s on their che cks totaling 5 $3,830, but Ellisor had alrea dy withdrawn the funds from the a ccount. B ank of America there fore reimburse d the schools for those chec ks and bore a loss of $3,914.49 (includingfee s). Ellisor had ea

rlier r esponded to a

n adver tisement for a

J aguar 393 a

nd paid initial 6 deposits, in cash, on Nove mber 17 a nd 19, 2003. On test drives of the car , he aske d the owner whether she wa s sure that the c ar c ould “make it to the Carolinas.” On Dec ember 3, Ellisor made a fina l cash pa

y ment and tra ded in Ang ela Saiza B ailey ’s ca r for the J aguar. 9 i n th e me mo r a n du m l i n e . H e th e n p u r c h a s e daJ a g u a r 3 9 3 . A tab o u tth e s a me 5 6 tim e, the stu de nts , te ac he rs , and c ha pe ro ne s w ho h ad

pur ch as ed

ti ck et s f or the Ch ri stm as sho ww er e on the ir w ay by bus to the c onve nti on c en te r. T he y f ound it lo ck edan d e m

pt y . Atte m

pt s t o re ach Ell is orby tele ph on e were u ns uc ces sf ul . He le ft agr ee tin g f

or the te le phon e num

be r lis te d f

or the sho wthat st at ed : This is David. I’ m

sorry to inform

y ou bu t the show has been po stpo ne d b ecau se we di dn ’t hav e en ou gh m on ey to bu y th e p res en ts . T he Ci ty of Mi am i w oul d no t a cc ep t the sc hool c he ck s and w e ha ve be enf igh tin g and w e ar e sor

ry about the la st m inu te de lay . T he f ie ld tr ip h as be en

pos tpo ne d un til ac oupl e w ee ks f ro m now . W e ar e so sor ry . P le as e ca ll W al te r H ine s. Ina ll, appr oxi m at el y

2, 700 tic ke ts w er e pur ch as ed f or the Ch ri stm as sho w ; no refund wa s ever given. T he Feder al Burea u of Investigatio n obtain ed a cr im inal co m pla int and w ar rant f or E lli sor ’ s arr es t onD ec em be r 11, 200 3. O n January 20, 2004 , E lli sor

sur re nde re d to auth or iti es . B. O n January

29, 200 4, agr an d j ur

y in the S outhe rnD istri ct

of F lor ida18 U.S.C. § 1341 proscribes the use of the United States mails in furthe ranc e of “ any 7 scheme or ar

tifice to def

raud, or [t o] obt ain[] money

or prope rty

by means of f

alse or f raudule nt prete nses, re prese ntations, or promises.” 10 re tur ne d an in dic tm en t c harg ing E lli sor w ithe igh t c ount s of

m ai l f ra ud i n vi olatio n of 18 U.S.C. § 1 34 1. The t ria l co m m en cedon Feb ru ary 1, 2 00 5. 7 Anum be r of sc hool te ac he rs and p er sonn el te sti fi ed a s to the ir

r ec ei pt o f the wr itten m aterials prom oting the Christm as show and their interactions with E llisor, as de sc ri be d inpart

I . A , sup ra . F ive of

the te ac he rs a lso ha d c onve rs at ion s w ith E lli sor in w hic h he ind ic at ed

the e xis te nc e of

c er ta in p ro ble m s w iththe sho w , but a tn o t i me d i dh e i n f

o rm th e m th a tth e s h o wwo u l dn o to c c u r . On th e c o n t r a ry, E lli sor a ssure d th em

that the sho ww as “ ab sol ute ly ” goi ng t o go on, “ ev enif people had to work ’ round th e clock.” The G overnm ent called a special a gent with the Diplom atic Se curity Ser vice of the U nit ed

S ta te s D ep ar

tm en t of S ta te , w ho t es tif

ie d th at the re w as no r ec or d of E lli sor be ing an A m

ba ssa dor -at- L ar ge or

dip lom at ic li ai son. N o gr oup of am bassadors was scheduled to vis it Miam i in the fall of 2003 for a Christm as show , and n o on e in the Mi am i f ie ld o ff ic e re co lle ct ed

e ve r ha vin g c onve rs ed

w ith Ell is orab ou t an yth in g. Fu rt h er m o re , t h e G o v ern m en ti n t ro du ce dev i d en ce th at re fu t ed El l i s o r’s specific claim s about th e show’ s spon sorship . The owner of the Christm as Palac e,11

Jam es K nip s, de nie d th at

the Ch ri stm as P al ac e w as e ve r a spon sor of the Christm as show. Ellisor paid Knips several visits between O ctober and Novem ber 2003 . O n hi s f

ir st v isi t, E lli sor

inf orm ed K nip s th at “ al l the a m

ba ssa dor s f

ro m a ll over the world w ere behindthis and su pportiv e of [E llisor’s] idea and plan that [E lli sor ] ha s do ne in the pa st. ” E lli sor a lso tol d K

nip s th at the U niv er sity

of M i a mi , D o ub l e tr e e H o t e l , an dth e f i r e an dp o l i c e d e p a rt me n t s o f th e C i t y o f

M i a mi we re sponsors of the sho w. A lthou gh Ellisor repeatedly asked Knips to becom e a spon sor and t o do na te Ch ri stm as tr ee s and d ec or at ion s, K nip s c onsi ste ntl y de cl ine d. H e did , how ev er , of fe r to s el l C hr istm as de co ratio ns “ at c ost , ” an d gave E lli sor 10, 000 Ch ri stm as P al ac e br oc hur es , be lie vin g th at E lli sor w oul d e nc los e them in University

of Miam i alum

ni m ailings. Ellisor then ordered 35 artific ial Ch ri stm as tr ee s th ro ugh K nip s. A lth oughK

nip s du ly pr oc ur ed the tr ee s, E lli sor n e v e r p a i df o r o r t o o kp o s s e s s i o n o f

th e m. On a subs equent visi t, E llisor sho we d Knips the glos sy flier indicating that the Christm as Palac e w as presenting the evening shows. E llisor explain ed that be ca use the daytim e show s ha d a lr ea dy sol d ou t, he w as “ goi ng t o have c or por at e spon sors for the parents to go at nigh ttim e and do the sam e event and that wa s se lli ng o ut f

as t a lso . ” K

nip s r ep lie d th at

he w as sti ll not

int er es te d inbe ing a spon sor and w an te d th e Ch ri stm as P al ac e’ s nam e take n of f the f lie r. E lli sorWright testified that he rec eived a cer tificate of insurance on Dec ember

4. Howeve r, on 8 cross-e x amination, Ellisor admitted that the chec k he used to proc ure the insurance policy bo un c e d f or no ns uf fi c ie nt f un ds . 12 as su redhi m

th atitwas ju st a m oc k- up . K nip s ha d e ar lie r giv enE lli sor the Ch ri stm as P al ac e’ s F ed er al E xpr es s ac co unt num be r so tha t E lli sor

c oul d se nd a

pa ck et of inf orm at ionabout

the sho w to Knips. H e testified that he did not, however, authorize E llisor to m ake further use of the a cc ount

num be r. K nip s su bse que ntl y

dis co ve re d th at

E lli sor ha d se nt pa ck et s of

m at er ia ls t o sc hool s us ing the Ch ri stm as P al ac e’ s F ed er al E xpr es s acco un t n um

be r; t he to ta l am ou nt ch arg edwas $ 1,8 63 . Severa l em

ploy ees of the D oubl etree Hotel a lso testified that th e hotel was ne ve r a spon sor

of the Ch ri stm as sho w ; i nde ed , the re w as no r ec or d th at E lli sor ever m ade such a re quest. E m ploy ees also testified that Ellisor showed them expe nsi ve pur ch as es he ha d m ad e, inc lud ing a$5, 000 w at chand e xpe nsi ve cl oth ing , and tha t E lli sor ’ s ho te l r oom c ont ai ne d on ly

pos te rs – no Ch ri stm as tr ee s, gi fts , or d eco rat io ns . Anum be r of w itn es se s te sti fi ed

that E lli sor

f ai le d to take the ne ce ssary ste ps to s ta ge the Ch ri stm as sho w . Wri ght te sti fi ed that E lli sor

ne ve r pa id the r em ai nin g balance on the use fee, nor did he ob tain an assem bly perm it, an occupational lic en se , or

an in sur an ce pol ic y . T he spe ci al e ve nts c oor din at or a t the Ci ty

of 813

Miam i Fire R escue testified that there w ere no records that Ellisor ever contacted the fire depar

tm ent to obt ain the necessary approvals for the Christm as show, let al one a ske d it

f or spo nsor shi p. Mi ch ae l S ch ott , the ow ne r of P ar ty Cate re rs , te sti fi ed that he m et

E lli sor a t the c onve nti on c en te r shor tly be fo re the sho ww as to begin and judged from

its appearance that no sh ow w ouldbe occurring. He asked E lli sor f or his m one y

ba ck , but E lli sor tol d hi m to w ai t un til a ft er

the sho w . S ch ott never set up anything at the convention center because he and E llisor never planned th e m enus nor dis cussed what w ouldbe appropriate to serve. Af inanc ia l audi tor

f ro m the U nit ed

S ta te s A tto rn ey ’ s of

fi ce te sti fi ed

a s to his r ev ie wof

E lli sor ’ s B an k of

A m er ic a re co rd s inc onne ct ionw iththe U niv er sity D ipl om at ic T ru st A cc ount . T ha t r ev ie wr ev ea le d th at a lth oughboth E lli sor

and his f ri en d, Mark

B. W ei se r, w er e sig na tor ie s to the a cc ount , the re is no r ec or d of an y a cc ount a ct ivi ty by W ei se r. A cc or din g to the r ec or ds, E lli sor w ro te c he ck s to him se lf , A nge laS ai za

Ba ile y , W al t H ine s, and a dr y c le an er . T he r ec or d of

de bit card a ct ivi ty r ev ea ls a sle wof pe rs ona l purc ha se s, inc lud ing c harg es a t P ubl ix, W algreens, Tir e K ingd om , C avalier W ine Cellar, Sunglass Hut, Blockbuster Vid eo , andNext el W ire le ss . Fi na lly , the G ove rn m en t a lso intro duc ed e vid en ce and t es tim ony

that E lli sor sol d $1 0 ti ck et s to sc hool ch ildre n inCa lif or nia , Mi sso ur i, Co lor ad o, and A ri zo na14

in c onne ct ionw ithasho wc al le d “ W as hin gto n D . C. on T our . ” T he inv itatio n pr om ise d th at

the sho w , sc he dul ed

f or N ove m be r 22, 199 9, a t the S al t L ak e Ci ty Marr iott H ote l i n U tah, w oul d “ co nsi st[ ] of 41 e xhi bit s of

art and h ist or

y about our nation’s ca

pital and the federal governm ent.” Ellisor cancelled the show and was subs equently

fined $31,200 b y

the Utah Depar

tm ent of Com

m erce , C onsu m er Pr ote ct ionD ivi sio n, ba se d onhis f ai lur e to p ay

r ef unds to co nsum er s w ith in 3 0 day s, f or com m itting a dece ptive act in viol ation of the Consu m er S ales Pr actices Ac t, U .C. A. § 13-11-4. At the close of the Governm ent’ s case, Ellisor m oved for a jud gm en t o f acq ui tt al , whi ch was d en ie d. E lli sor c al le d hi s e x- gir lf

ri en d, A nge laS ai za

Ba ile y , and W al te r H ine s to the stand, then tookthe stand him self. Bailey testified that Ellisor lived with her fo r thr ee or

f our m onths p ri or

to the sho w . D ur ing tho se m onths, he a cquir ed a co m put er , apr int er , and l ab el ing e qui pm en t, and f ie lde d ph one c al ls r el at ing to the showf ro m he r hous e. E lli sor

e nli ste d th e he lp o f he r ch ildre n inpr ep ar ing f or the show. B ailey

also claim ed to have seen prizes in E llisor’s suite at the D oubl etree Hotel, and testified that the watch that E llisor pu rchased did not cost m ore than $500
. On cr oss-exam ination , B ailey adm itted that she never saw any Christm as tr ee s, e ith er

a t he r hom e or

in the D oubl etre e H ote l, and tha t he r ch ildre n’ s r ole in
w orkin g onthe Ch ri stm as sho ww as li m ite d to stu ff ing e nve lop es and wra

ppi ngHi ne s d id n ot s e nd the le tte r t o th e un ive rs ity fo r a pp ro va l. H e wa s su

bs e qu e ntl y 9 dis c ha rg e d f ro m hi s p os t in

the art de pa rtme nt f or us ingthe le tte rh e a d o f t

he Un ive rs ity

of Mia mi without permission. 15 som e gif ts. W al t H ine s te sti fi ed

that E lli sor

a ske d hi m

to w ri te ale tte r to h av e the University

of Miam i spon sor a booth with an art exhibit th at w ouldbe display ed at the Ch ri stm as sho w . E lli sor tol d H ine s th at

the uni ve rs ity

w oul d ge t a

c he ck f ro m the pr of its . B el ie vin g th at

it w oul d be “ a good

f undr ai se r, ” H ine s w ro te suc h a le tte r on Apr il 10, 200 3. H e be lie ve d th at the uni ve rs ity ’ s in vol ve m en t w iththe 9 showw oul d e nd w ithit s sp onso rs hip of aboo th; he w as unaw ar e of the use of

his na m e on the Ch ri stm as sho w ’ s in vit at ionle tte r. H ine s th ense le ct ed 25 o f his stu de nts f ro m f or ei gn c ountri es and h ad

the m c re at e post er s a

bout Ch ri stm as in their hom e countries. H e took tho se posters to the sh ow on De cem ber 3. Hines a l s o me tw i t h an e mp l o ye e o f th e C h r i s t ma s P a l a c e an ds h o w e dh i m s o me m at er ia ls e xpl ai nin g th e tr ad iti on o f Ch ri stm as in oth er c ountri es , so tha t the C h r i s t mas P a l a c e wo u l du n d e r s t a n dh o wt o d e c o r a t e th e C h r i s t mas tr e e s . F i n a l l y, H ine s te sti fi ed

that a w ee k be fo re the Ch ri stm as sho ww as sup pose d to be gin , he co nt act edth ree o r so em

ba ss ie s t o b rin g a rtwo rkfro m th ei r co un tri es to th e sh ow. On cr oss-exam ination , H ines clarified that he becam e upset at Ellisor when he dis co ve re d th at

E lli sor ha d us ed his le tte r as part

of the pr om oti ona l m at er ia ls16

se nt t o th e sc hool s. H ow ev er , E lli sor “ m or e or le ss t al ke d [ H ine s] int o go ing al ong w ithit . ” E lli sor

a lso pr es sur ed

H ine s in to r ec ei vin g th e sc hool c he ck s inhis uni ve rs ity

m ai lbo x and d ep osi tin g th em on E lli sor ’ s be ha lf

. A cc or din g to H ine s, on D ec em

be r 2, E lli sor

tol d hi m that he w oul d c al l the sc hool s to c an ce l the e ve nt, but later that evening said h e had decided m erely to postpone the sh ow. H ines ne ve r he ar d f

ro m E lli sor a ga in. Fi na lly , E lli sor

too k th e stand t o te sti fy

on h is o w n be ha lf

. E lli sor intro duc ed

him se lf to the j ur y a s apr ivate de te ct ive , the dip lom at ic li ai son fo r the In te rn at ion al D ipl om at ic Co rp s, asho wpr oduc er , and a gui tari st. E lli sor

be gan by de fe ndi ng h is a

bil ity to m ar sha l the ne ce ssary dip lom at s, c la im ing that he personally

had 56 em

bassies und er c ontract and could “ bring tho se em bassies wher ever [ he] want[ed] to bring th em .” H e adm itted that no am bassador was spe ci fi ca lly

c om ing to the Ch ri stm as sho w , but poi nte d to adis cl ai m er

on the invit ation m aterials that “ specific am bassadors m ay

or m ay not appear.” E lli sor ’ s e xpl an at ionf

or the Ch ri stm as sho w ’ s de m ise w as that ha lf of the sc hool s th at

ini tia lly r eg ist er ed

sub se que ntl y

c an ce lle d th ei r re se rv at ion s; ac co rd ing ly , the sho ww as und er -s ubsc ri be d. F ac ing bud ge tary c onstra int s, E lli sor te sti fi ed to a ch an ge of

plan: “ the c hil dr en[ w oul d] do the or na m en ts. A nd the y w oul d c om e in, w al k aro und an d pu t the m in. A nd the dip lom at s . . . [ w oul d]Ellisor’s testimony on this matter appea

rs at var iance with the trial testimony of the 10 Enterpr ise Rent-a- Car ag ent who deliver ed Ellisor’s re ntal vehicle to the D oubletree Hotel. She testified that Ellisor told her he wa s prepa ringa Christmas show “for children f

rom the urba

n schools that would not normally g et Christmas presents a

nd he wa s trying to he lp the schools and trying to ha

ve childre n rec eive Christmas pre sents for the holiday s.” He reque sted, and re ceive d, a discount rate for the Cadillac De Ville beca use he c laimed “he didn’t want to take mone y from the childre n.” The c laim that the show was g oing to be attended by the pamper ed prog eny

of the wea lthiest families in Miami i s also at odds with Ellisor’s testimony that he thoug ht the g ifts for the c hil dr e n w e re g oin gto b e pr ov ide d b y the Mia mi p oli c e de pa

rtme nt a s p art

of a To y s- fo r- To ts pr ogra m. 17 co m e an d br ing artw ork, the ir pe rs ona l artw ork f

ro m the ir hou se [s ] . ” H e tho ught that he c oul d purc ha se Ch ri stm as tr ee s f or tw en ty or thi rty dol lars apie ce f

ro m the fi re de partm en t’ s C hr istm as tr ee lot , and tha t the pol ic e de partm en t w oul d pr ovi de th e g ift s fr om

it s To y s- fo r-To ts pro gr am . Cr oss -e xam inatio n e xpos ed num er ous hol es in E lli sor ’ s te sti m ony , onl y several of which we shall re count here. First, Ellisor’ s description o f the target audience of the Christm as show w as inconsis tent with his own testim ony and that of oth er w itn es se s. E lli sor

ins ist ed that he tol d K

nip s: “ If he w oul d de co rate the ha ll, that w e w oul d a llo whim to se ll re ta il an d he w oul d have the e xc lus ive of the th ou sa nd s o f fam il ie s, t he ric he st fam il ie s i n M ia m i fr om th e p riv at e sc ho ol s.” 10 Second, E llisor offered a

bevy of conflicting explanatio ns for why he never ca lle d th e sc hool s to not if y the m of the sho w ’ s c an ce llatio n or pos tpo ne m en t. H is fi rs t e xpl an at ionw as that he int en de d th e stu de nts and t ea ch er s to sho wup o n th e18

day of the sho w , be ar ing an a ddi tio na l $2 0, 000 in c he ck s. W iththat m one y , he
w oul d purc ha se gif

ts f or the stu de nts ; and w iththe le ve ra ge of the m ed ia , he
w oul d be able to pr es sur e the c onve nti on c en te r to l et the stu de nts ins ide . T he stu de nts w oul d th enhe lp s et up the sho w . T he se co nd e xpl an at ionw as that E lli sor tol d H ine s to c al l the sc hool s onD ec em be r 2, and tha t E lli sor

w oul d f oll owup w ithte le phon e ca lls ove r the ne xt f ewday s. T he thi rd

e xpl an at ionw as that E lli sor w as goi ng t o c al l the te ac he rs on D ec em be r 2, but he c oul d no t be ca

use he did

not h a v e th e i r h o me t e l e p h o n e n u mb e r s . Wh e n f o r c e dt o a d mi tth a th e d i dh a v e th e m, E lli sor shi ft ed ge ar s to af

ourth e xpl an at ion– tha t he c hose not to do s o

“ str at eg ic al ly ”: “ [i ] t w oul d be be tte r fo r ev er y one to ha ve gon e down th er e an d dealt with it, y ou kn ow, on the spo t.” T hir d, E lli sor ’ s te sti m ony that the $5, 000 ch ec k he gave to the c onve nti on ce nte r on N ove m

be r 13, 200 3, bounc ed

be ca use of adouble de bit

by Bank o f Am erica wa s incons istent with bank records. T hose records showed there w as ne ve r an y double de bit

by Bank o f A m er ic a, and tha t E lli sor w ith dr ew$3, 980 fr om an A T M –

le av ing $5. 60 i n th e bank a cc ount – onN ove m

be r 14, 200 3, the sa m e d ay th atth e co nv en ti on cen te r tr ie d, u ns uc ces sf ul ly, to cas h t he ch eck . Fo urth, E lli sor

ini tia lly portr ay ed

G re gor y Wri ght a s asy m pa the tic ch arac te r, on e who work edve ry ha rdon th e sh ow an d t rie d t o m ak e it su ccee d.Ellisor made a numbe r of vituper ative cla ims about W right. He stated that Wright 11 “re prese nt[ ed] the interests of the D evil” in pre venting“Christian children f rom ce lebrating the birth of Christ,” and that Wrig ht’s “cr iminal destruction was re sponsible for ca nceling ” the show and “be tray [i ng ] t he entire international diplomatic cor ps.” 19 On cr oss-exam ination , how ever, Ellisor adm itted that he had previou sly assigned the pr im ar

y blam e fo r the sho w ’ s f

ai lur e to W

ri ght . 11 Finally , E llisor attributed h is in-room m ovie charges at the D oubl etree Hotel to “ ro ck and r oll m ovi es ” vie w ed by U niv er sity

of Mi am i st ude nts w ho h el pe d hi m work on the show, which was contradicted by the Governm ent’ s evidence that the y w er e ac tua lly

c harg es f or e ve nin g a dul t m ovi es . A t the c los e of

the G ove rn m en t’ s e vid en ce , E lli sor r en ew ed his m oti on f

or j udgm en t of

a cquitta l, w hic h w as de nie d. A ft er de lib er at ing f

or tw o ho ur s, on Fe br uary 7, 200 5, the j ur

y r et ur ne d ave rd ic t of

gui lty a s to a ll ei ght

c ount s of m ai l fr au d. E lli sor

w as se nte nc ed

to 87 m onths’ im

pr iso nm en t f

or e ac h c ount , to be se rv ed c onc ur re ntl y , thr ee y ears ’ sup er

vis ed r el ea se , an $8 00 a sse ssm en t, and $38, 509. 09 i n r es tit

uti on. E lli sor

ti m el y appe al ed . II. T he ope nin g sa lvo in thi s a ppe al is a ch al le nge to the suf fi ci en cy of the evidence. How ever, because this argum ent depends o n the claim that the district co urt i m pr ope rl y a dm itt ed e xtr ins ic a ct

e vid en ce that t ai nte d th e ev ide nc e as aThe same standard of revie w applies to these two c laims. Bec ause a trial court ha s 12 b ro add i s cr et i o nt o d et erm i n e t h e a dm i s s i b i l i ty o f e v i d en ce , we d o n o td i s turb ev i d en t i ary ru l i n gs absent a clea r abuse of discre tion. United States v. W illiford, 764 F.2d 1493, 1497 (11th Cir. 1985). 20 w hol e, w e ad dr es s th e la tte r cl ai m f ir st. F or e as e of dis cu ssi on, w e the n turnto

12 the other evidentiary

challenge, the argum ent that the court im properly excluded ev ide nc e of

E lli sor ’ s le git im at e busi ne ss c ondu ct . H av ing dis pose d of the se challenges, w e re turn to the su fficiency of the evidence. A. E lli sor c ha lle nge s e vid en ce of

tw o in ci de nts intro duc ed by the G ove rn m en t at trial. First, the Governm ent adduced evidence of Ellisor’ s m iscondu ct in Utah re la tin g to the “ W as hin gto n D . C. on T our ” show . S ec ond, the G ove rn m en t intro duc ed

e vid en ce that f

ro m N ove m be r 6–21 , 200 3, E lli sor

stay ed a t the D oubl etre e H ote l i n C oc onut G ro ve and the n a

bsc onde d w ith out

f orm al ly checking out , le aving behi nd $1 ,657 in unp aid charges. E llisor appeals the dis trict co urt’ s de ci sio n pe rm itt ing e vid en ce of both in ci de nts ove r his obj ec tio n purs uant t o Fe d er al Ru l e o f E v i d en ce 4 0 4 (b ). We d ea l fi rs twi t h th e e v i d en ce o f E l l i s o r’s m iscondu ct in Utah, then address the evidence of the unpaid bi ll at the Doubletree H ote l. Ru le 404 (b ) pr ovi de s th at :In B onne r v . Ci ty of Pr ic ha rd , 6 61 F .2 d 1 20 6, 12 09 (1 1th Cir . 1 98 1) (e n b anc ), thi s 13 c ourt a do pte d a s b ind ingpr e c e de nt a ll d e c isi on s o f t he fo rm e r F if

th C ir c uit ha nd e d d own p ri or

to 21 E vid en ce of

oth er c ri m es , w ro ngs, or

a ct s is not

a dm iss ibl e to p ro ve the c hara ct er

of ape rs on i n or de r to s howa ct ionin co nf orm ity therew ith. It m ay , how ever, be adm issib le for other purposes, such as proof of m otive, opportun ity , intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, id en ti ty, orab se nc e o f m is ta ke or a cci de nt . . . . Fed. R. Evid. 404(b). T he rule is “ one of inclusio n which allows [e xtrinsic] ev ide nc e unl es s it

te nds to p ro ve onl y

c ri m ina l pr ope nsi ty . T he li st p ro vid ed by the r ule is not e xhaust ive and the r an ge of r el ev an cy

out sid e the ban is a lm ost inf ini te . ” U nit ed

S ta te s v. S te phe ns, 365 F . 3d 9 67, 975 ( 11th C ir . 200 4) ( quot ing U nit ed S ta te s v. Co he n, 888 F . 2d 7 70, 776 ( 11th C ir . 198 9) ) (i nte rn al quo ta tio n m arks om itted). T o be a dm iss ibl e unde r Ru le 404 (b ), e vid en ce of pr ior ba d a ct s m

ust w ith stand a

thr ee -p ar t t es t: (1 ) t h e e v i d en ce m

u s tb e r el ev an tt o an i s s u e o t h erth an d ef en d an t ’s charac ter; (2 ) the pr obativ e va lue m ust not be sub stanti al ly

outw ei ghe d by

it s undu e prej udice; (3 ) the gov er

nm en t m ust of fe r suf fi ci en t pr oof

so tha t the j ur

y c oul d fi nd tha t de fe ndant c om

m itt ed the a ct . United States v. Ram irez, 426 F.3d 1344 , 1354 (11th Cir. 2005); see also United St at es v. Be ec hum , 582 F . 2d 8 98, 911 ( 5thCi r. 197 8) ( enbanc ) (d isc uss ing the se t h re e p re re qu i s i t es as p ar to f atwo -s t ep t es t ). “ We r ev i ew th e d i s t ri ct co u rt ’s 13October

1, 1981. We d o n ot a dd

re ss E lli so r’ s argume nt t

hat e vid e nc e of

the Ut ah f

ine is “ no t in e xtri c a

bly 14 int e rt wi ne d w iththe c ha

rg e s in thi s c a se ” be c a

us e the Go ve rnme nt d oe s n ot a rgue that it

is. The Gove rnment initially claimed that the e vidence was off ere d to show Ellisor’s 15 “ i n t e n tt o d e f

r a u d , h i s kn o w l e d g e o f

th e s c h e m e , th e a

b s e n c e o f m i s t ak e o r

a c c i d e n t , h i s i d e n t i ty, and his motive, plan and opportunity to defra ud.” On a

ppeal, the G overnme nt states mere ly that the evidenc e showe d Ellisor’s fra udulent intent. Be cause we a g ree with the Gover nment’s argument, we do not discuss the possibility that the evidenc e is rele vant to these other purposes a s w e ll. 22 adm issio n of prior crim es or bad acts under [R ule 404(b)] for abuse of discre tion.” Ram ir ez , 426 F . 3d at 13 54. On appeal, Ellisor does not dis pute the third requirem ent of the three-par t te st. R athe r, he a ssa ils the r el ev an ce and p ro ba tiv e va lue of the e vid en ce ; he cl ai m s th at

the e vid en ce is ir

re le vant b ec au se it

doe s no m or e than e sta

bli sh tha t he

“ wa s required to pay

a civil fine in U tah,” and he contends that the prej udicial value of the evidence substanti ally outweighs its p robative value. 14 W e fi nd tha t the dis tr ic t c ourt di d no t a buse it s di sc re tio n by

a dm itt ing ev ide nc e of

E lli sor ’ s m isc ondu ct

in U tah. C ontrary

to E lli sor ’ s arg um en t, the ev ide nc e did

not sim ply e sta bli sh the f

ac t tha t he w as sub

j ec t t o ac ivi l f

ine in Utah. A s argued by

the Governm ent, the evidence w as relevant to an issue other th an Ell is or ’s cha ract er –hi s i nt en t t o d efra udby pro m ot in g a n i ll us ory sh ow. 15 Se e B ee ch u m , 5 8 2 F. 2 dat9 1 1 (“Wh er e t h e i s s u e a d dre s s ed i s th e d ef en d an t ’s intent to com

m it the offense char ged, the re levancy of the extrinsic offense der ives23

fr om the de fe ndant’ s in dul gin g hi m se lf in the sam e state of

m ind in the perpetration of both th e extrinsic and charged offe nses.”). T he e vid en ce w as a lso pr obativ e. I n a sse ssi ng the pr obativ e va lue of the ex tr ins ic e vid en ce , w e ev al ua te the G ove rn m en t’ s in cr em en ta l ne ed f or the ev ide nc e to p ro ve gui lt be y ond a re as ona ble doubt, “ the ove ra ll sim ilari ty of the ex tr ins ic and the c harg ed of fe nse s and the c los en es s or r em ote ne ss i n ti m e of

the ch ar ge d to the e xtr ins ic of fe nse . ” U nit ed

S ta te s v. P ar

r, 716 F . 2d 7 96, 805 ( 11th Ci r. 198 3) . T he G ove rn m en t i ntr oduc ed e vid en ce of

the U tah m isc ondu ct

in its ca se in ch ie f, but

it w as c le ar

be fo re the c as e pr oc ee de d to tr ia l tha t E lli sor ’ s in te nt w o u l db e th e p r i mary d i s p u t e di s s u e . S e e B e e c h u m, 5 8 2 F . 2 da t9 1 5 . S p e c i f i c a l l y, E lli sor ’ s de fe nse w as that the c an ce llatio n of the Ch ri stm as sho ww as the uni nte nde d r es ult

of Wri ght ’ s bungl ing and s lug gis h ti ck et sa le s. T he G ove rn m en t the re fo re ha d ne ed

of the e vid en ce in its c as e in c hie f to p ro ve E lli sor ’ s f ra udul en t int en t. S ee P ar

r, 716 F . 2d at 80 5 ( not ing that “ the gov er nm en t pr es en te d a subs tantial but n ot overwhelm ing case on the intent issue. A dditi onal evidence rel ev an t t o a n i nt en t t o d efra udcan no t b e sa idto ha ve be en un ne ces sa ry ”). T he sim ilari tie s be tw ee n th e inc ide nts w er e al so s tr iki ng. T he U tah in ci de nt inv olv ed an in vit at ionto sc hool ch ildre n to vie wart and h ist or

y e xhi bit s f

ro m va rio us fed eral ag en ci es in W as hi ng to n, D.C. fo r th e co st of a $1 0 t ic ke t.24

Although Ellisor re served a f acility at the Mar

riott Hotel, the hotel never rece ived a $5, 000 de posi t f

or it s us e fe e an d th er ef

or e canc el le d th e re se rv at ion . T he sim ilarities betwee n the Utah incident and the charged offense m ake it m ore probable that Ellisor never intended to m ake good on his prom ises. S ee Ram irez, 426 F. 3d at 13 54 ( “ Asim ilari ty be tw ee n th e oth er

a ct and a c harg ed of fe nse w ill m ak e the oth er

of fe nse hig hly

pr obativ e w ithr eg ar d to ade fe ndant’ s in te nt i n th e charged offe nse.”) ; United States v. La Spesa, 956 F.2d 1027 , 1036 (11th Cir. 1992 ) (a dm itt ing e xtr ins ic e vid en ce of apr ev iou s in ci de nt tha t “ w as vir tua lly ide nti ca l t o th e tr an sa ct ion s de sc ri be d inthe ind ic tm en t, and w as hig hly pr obativ e of [th e d efen da nt s’] frau du le nt in te nt wit h re sp ectto th e ch arg edtra ns act io ns ”). Although the events relating to the Utah m iscondu ct occurre d between N ovem ber 1999 and F eb ru ar

y 200 0 w hil e the of

fe nse c harg ed

oc curr ed in Se pte m

be r thr ough De cem ber 2003, given the hig h degree of sim ilarity betwee n the two, the tem poral se paratio n of

the tw o do es not

sig nif ic an tly de pr ec ia te the pr obativ e va lue of the U tah m isc ondu ct . S ee Be ec hum , 582 F . 2d at 91 5. W e cannot

say that the pr obativ e va lue of thi s e vid en ce w as sub stanti al ly outweighed by

the risk of undu e prej udice. T he district court here did not giv e a lim iti ng i nstru ct iona t the ti m e the e vid en ce w as a dm itt ed . E lli sor did not r eque stBe cause Ellisor did not request a limiting instruction, the district court’ s failure to give 16 an instruction at that time was not e rror ; nor do we f ind that the absenc e of suc h an instruction amounted to plain er

ror whic h “ser iously

aff ecte d the fa irness, integ rity , or public re putation of judicial proce eding s.” See United States v. Miranda, 197 F .3d 1357, 1360 & n.4 ( 11th Cir. 1999). The Gove rnment in its opening statement at the outset of tr ial informed the jur y that 17 Ellisor was “not on trial for what happe ned in Utah,” and that evide nce of the Utah misconduc t was off ere d in order to show Ellisor’s “ intent to defra ud in this case.” I

n closing , the Go ve rnme nt r e fe rr e d to the e vid e nc e on ly in r e butta l, t o r e fu

te El lis or ’s c la im that he wa s me re ly lackingin business acumen. The district court also instructed the jury duringthe final c harg e that Ellisor was “on tria l only

for the spe cific of

fense s alleg ed in the indictment.” 25 such an inst ruction, nor did he object to its om issio n. W hile the “ scalpel” of an 16 appropriate lim iting instruction at the tim e the evidence w as adm itted can reduce the r isk of inh er en t pr ej udi ce , c f. U nit ed S tate s v. Canc el lie re , 69 F . 3d 1 116, 112 3 (1 1thCi r. 199 5) , giv enthe pr obativ e fo rc e of the e vid en ce and the f

ac t tha t the ev ide nc e w as pr ope rl y

arg ue d by

the G ove rn m en t i n it s c los ing arg um en t t o th e j ur y , w e co nc lud e that the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s a dm iss ionof the e vid en ce did

not 17
co nst itu te an a

buse of dis cr et ion . S ee P ar

r, 716 F . 2d at 80 5 ( fi ndi ng e xtr ins ic ev ide nc e w as pr ope rl y

a dm itt ed de spi te the a

bse nc e of ali m iti ng i nstru ct iondue to the na tur e of

the e xtr ins ic e vid en ce and the m ini m al pr ej udi ce r es ult ing f ro m it s adm issio n). A s f or the e vid en ce of

the unp ai d bi ll at

the D oubl etre e H ote l, the G ove rn m en t c la im s th at

it is not e xtr ins ic e vid en ce sub

j ec t t o R ule 404 (b ) be ca

use itis “ in ex tri cab ly int ert win ed ” wit h t he ev id en ce re la ti ng to th e ch arg edoff en se .We n ote that E lli so r d oe s li ttl e mor e tha n a ssi g n e rr or

to t his iss ue , a s th is p or

tio n o f h is 18 br ie f c onta ins no argume nt a nd c ite s to no le g a l a

uth or ity , a

nd me re ly state s th at “ [t]he same argument and ca se law a dvance d above a pplies [s ic] here.” See United States v. Campbell, 491 F.3d 1306, 1315 ( 11th Cir. 2007). 26 Whil e it is d if

fi cu lt to d isc er

n th e spe ci fi c co nto ur s of E lli sor ’ s c ha lle nge to the hot el bil l e vid en ce due to the “ shot gun” sty le of arg um en t i n th is p ortio n of his br ie f, he dis put es the f

ind ing that this e vid en ce is “ ine xtr ic ab ly int er tw ine d” w ith 18 the of fe nse w ithw hic h he w as c harg ed . T he e vid en ce of

E lli sor ’ s unpa id h ote l bi ll w as not e xtr ins ic . E vid en ce of cr im ina l a ct ivi ty

oth er than th e of

fe nse c harg ed

is not e xtr ins ic pr ovi de d th at

the ev ide nc e is “ (1 ) anunc harg ed of fe nse w hic h aro se out

of the sam e tr an sa ct ionor se ri es of tr an sa ct ion s a s th e ch ar ge d of fe nse , ( 2) ne ce ssary

to co m ple te the sto ry

of the crim e, or (3) inextrica bly intertwined w ith the evidence regarding the charged of fe nse . ” U nit ed

S ta te s v. Jim ine z, 224 F . 3d 1 243, 124 9 ( 11th C ir . 200 0) ( quot ing United States v. McL ean, 138 F.3d 139 8, 1403 (11th Cir. 1998 ); see a lso United St at es v. W ill if

or d, 764 F . 2d 1 493, 149 9 ( 11th C ir . 198 5) ( “ E vid en ce , not part of the c ri m e ch ar ge d bu t pe rt ai nin g to the c ha in o f ev en ts e xpl ai nin g th e co nte xt, m oti ve and s et -u

p of the c ri m e, is pr ope rl y

a dm itt ed if li nke d inti m e an d circum stances with the charged c rim e, or form s an integral and natural part of an ac co unt of the c ri m e, or

is ne ce ssary

to co m ple te the sto ry

of the c ri m e fo r the27

j ury .” ). He re, the unpaid b ill at the Doubletree H otel was inextricably intertwined with the G overnm ent’ s evidence pertaining to th e Christm as show. The charges on the bil l w er e inc ur

re d inN ove m

be r 2003 , in the w ee ks i m m ed ia te ly pr ec ed ing the da te s a dve rt ise d f

or the sho w . E lli sor

use d th e na m e of

the hot el on m at er ia ls advertising th e show and in conversations with teac hers and busin esses to bols ter the sho w ’ s le git im ac y , c ontrary to the te sti m ony

of w itn es se s w ho d en ie d th at the D oubl etre e H ote l w as e ve r a spon sor of the sho win an y

f as hio n. E vid en ce of

the unpa id b ill c or

ro bor at ed the G ove rn m en t’ s th eo ry that, c onsi ste nt w iththe int en t to d ef ra ud, E lli sor

w as spe ndi ng the m one y on d isc re tio nary

pur ch as es f

or him se lf and not, as E llisor m aintained, on preparations for the show. E llisor testified that althoug h he contem

poraneouslypaid rent to his th en-girlfriend for occupy ing her hous e, the sui te a t the D oubl etre e H ote l w as ane ce ssary bus ine ss e xpe nse be ca

use he ne ed ed

ase parate of

fi ce to plan and p re pare f or the sho w . C onse que ntl y , the unpaidbill was a nec essary part of the evidence r elating to th e char ged offense, an d th e dis tr ic t c ourt di d no t a buse it s di sc re tio n by

a dm itt ing it . B. El l i s o r c l ai m s th at th e d i s t ri ct co u rt erre di n g ra n t i n g th e G o v ern m en t ’s pr etri al m oti on i n li m ine to pr ec lud e E lli sor f ro m intro duc ing e xtr ins ic e vid en ce ofLuis Setien was one of sever al def

endants who w ere char g ed with conspira cy to import 19 and distribute coc aine through the use of c ommercia l flights. United States v. Camejo, 929 F .2d 610, 612 (11th Cir. 1991). At trial, Setien soug ht to admit the testim ony of Max Mermelstein, wh o w ou ld t e sti fy

that du ri ngthe re le va

nt t ime pe ri od , h e ha d o ff e re d Se tie n th e op po rt

un ity to quit his j ob as a ba g g ag e handle r and w ork in Merme lstein’s narc otics business, an offe r which Se tie n d e c lin e d. I d. at 61 2– 13 . Se tie n c onte nd e d th at Me rm e lst e in’ s te sti mony wa s n e c e ssa

ry to neg ate the e lement of mens r ea ne cessa ry to convict him of conspira cy to import cocaine , as the testimony “wa s releva

nt to show he was of

fer ed an oppor

tunity to do the same thingand ref used.” I d. at 613. The district c ourt g rante d the g overnme nt’s motion in l imine on the basis of Fe dera l Rules of Evidence 405(b) a nd 404(b), a

nd we a ffirme d. I d. 28 pur porte dly le git im at e busi ne ss a ct ivi tie s inor de r to n eg at e ev ide nc e of his fr au dul en t i nte nt w ithr es pe ct to the Ch ri stm as sho w . S pe ci fi ca lly , E lli sor sou ght to introd uce a D VD produced by him that advertised a prior show, as w ell as co rres po nd en ce p ur

po rte dl y de m on st rat in g t ha t El li so r ha d p ro du cedot he r sh ows ove r a te n- y ear pe ri od. O n a ppe al , E lli sor

c ont en ds that be ca

use the G ove rn m en t w as pe rm itt ed

to intro duc e ev ide nc e of the U tah m isc ondu ct

and e vid en ce of

the unpa id D oubl etre e H ote l bi ll, the dis tr ic t c ourt a buse d it s di sc re tio n by

pr ev en tin g him f ro m pr es en tin g th e D V D and c or re spon de nc e to n eg at e suc h e vid en ce of int en t. T he arg um ent i s de voi d of m er it. Beca use “ [e] vidence of goodconduct is no t adm issib le to negate crim inal int en t, ” the D V D and c or re spon de nc e w er e pr ope rl y e xc lud ed . U nit ed

S ta te s v. Cam ej o, 929 F.2d 610, 613 (11th Cir. 1991). W e have previously held such 19 evidence to be inadm issib le. The fact that E llisor pu rportedly produced oth er sh ows do es no t b ear o n h is in te nt to de frau d wi th res pe ctto th e Ch ris tm as sh ow,The rule s of evidenc e prosc ribe the a dmission of irreleva nt evidence , define d as 20 evidenc e with has no “ tendenc y to make the e x istence of

any fac t that is of conseque nce to the deter mination of the ac tion more probable or less proba ble than it would be without the evidenc e.” F ed. R. Evid. 401, 402. Even if suc h evidenc e we re r eleva nt, the evidenc e would be ina dmissibl e under Rule 403, as any marg inal probative va lue of the e vidence would be vastly outweig hed by

the risk of confusion of the issues, misleading the jury , and conside rations of undue delay and wa ste of time. Fe d. R. Evid. 403. I n particula r, the trial would be g reatly prolong ed by

the Gover

nment’s nee d to present e vidence in rebuttal, name ly , evidenc e that the shows r efe renc ed by the DVD a

nd c or re sp on de nc e we re no t, i n f a c t, s uc c e ssf

ul e nd e avo rs . Lucy Marr ero w as cha

rg ed with pre sentingfalse insura nce c laims to a fede ral a g ency 21 and for theft of g overnme nt property based on imprope r billing pra ctices. United States v. Marr e ro , 9 04 F .2 d 2 51 , 2 53 (1 1th Cir . 1 99 0) . T o b ols te r h e r d e fe ns e of la c k o f m oti ve or

int e nt, Marr e ro “ so ught t o intr od uc e e vid e nc e wh ic h s ho we d th at sh e pr ov ide d mo re se rv ic e s to so me clients than they

wer e ac tually

billed for and that sometimes she rende red se rvice s fre e of c ha rg e .” I d. at 25 9. We a ff

ir me d th e dis tr ic t c ourt ’s e xclu sio n o f t he e vid e nc e of

the se sp e c if

ic acts a s irrele vant and inadmissible under Fe dera l Rule of Evidence 405(b). I d. at 259–60 (“Ma rre ro sought at trial to use spec ific ac ts circumstantially to prove lac k of intent. Such a tactic is not only

disfavore d, it is notpermitted under Rule 405(b).” ). Specific instanc es of c onduct ar e inadmissible as cha rac ter e vidence , except “[i] n case s 22 in which cha

rac ter or a

trait of cha

rac ter of a

person is an e ssential element of a cha rg e, cla im, or defe nse.” F ed. R. Evid. 405(b). Havingrevie wed the c ases c ited by Ellisor in support of his claim, we find they are too 23 inapplicable to mer it discussion. 29 an d is the re fo re ir

re le vant. S ee U nit ed

S ta te s v. Marr er o, 904 F . 2d 2 51, 260 20 (1 1thCi r. 199 0) ( “ T he f

ac t tha t M ar

re ro did not ove rc harg e in e ve ry

ins tanc e in
w hic h sh e ha d an op portun ity to do s o is not

r el ev an t t o w he the r she , in fa ct , ove rc harg ed

a s a lle ge d inthe ind ic tm en t. ”) . T he se spe ci fi c ac ts o f good 21 ch ar ac t erwe re i n ad m i s s i b l e u n d erRu l es 4 0 4 (b ) a n d4 0 5 (b ) t o p ro v e E l l i s o r’s 22
ac tio n inc onf

orm ity the re w ith . S ee Cam ej o, 929 F . 2d at 61 3; M ar re ro , 904 F . 2d at 259 –60. F ina lly , a s th e G ove rn m en t arg ue s and E lli sor doe s no t r ef

ute , the 2330

DV D and correspondence wer e properly excluded on th e grounds o f hear say , a s the y w er e of fe re d f or the pur pose of a dm itt ing out -o f- co urt st at em en ts atte sti ng t o the tr uthof the a sse rt ionthat E lli sor ha d pr ev iou sly

pr oduc ed

suc ce ssf ul s how s. Insum , the e vid en ce w as pr ope rl y e xc lud ed by the dis tr ic t c ourt. C. Ellisor contends that, we re it not for the introduction of the extrinsic act ev ide nc e dis cu sse d inpart I I. A , sup ra , the re w oul d be ins uf fi ci en t e vid en ce a s a m atter of law to support his conviction . Ac cordingly , he claim s that the dist rict co urt e rr ed

in de ny ing his m oti on f

or j udgm en t of

a cquitta l a s to a ll co unt s. Ellisor concedes that the only issue for the j ury

wa s whether he poss essed the requisite intent to com m it the fraud charged. H e m aintains that he did not; th at his ste ad fa st i nte nti on t o put onthe sho ww as blunte d by the “ sa d r es ult

that the ev en t w as w oe fu lly

und er sub sc ri be d and c oul d no t go on. ” I n su ppor t of thi s claim , he poin ts to his own testim ony , W alt Hines’ s testim ony that “ a lot of work wa s done in p reparing the artw ork and decorations for the show,” and oth er witness testim ony

indicating that Ellisor paid a deposit to th e convention center, pur ch as ed

an in sur an ce bin de r, and m et w ithbus ine ss o w ne rs . The m ain flawin Ellisor’ s argum ent is that he m isconceives a crucial a spect of the standard

of r ev ie w . Aj udgm en t of

a cquitta l i s w ar

rante d a s to “ an y

of fe nse31

for which the evidence is insu fficient to sustain a convictio n.” Fed. R. Crim . P . 29( a) . I n c onsi de ri ng the suf fi ci en cy of the e vid en ce , w e re gard

the e vid en ce in the li ght m ost f av or ab le to the j ur

y ve rd ic t, and drawa ll re as ona ble inf er en ce s and credibility

determ ination s in favor of the G overnm ent. United States v. P uche, 350 F.3d 113 7, 1142 (11th Cir. 2003 ). E llisor m istakenlyargues that the district court err ed because “ reasonable m inds cou ld have differed a s to the result.”

“ Be ca use w e re co gni ze that the j ur y is fr ee to ch oose be tw ee n or a m ong the re as ona ble c onc lus ion s to be dr awn f ro m the e vid en ce pr es en te d a t tri al , our sufficiency

reviewrequires only

that a guilty

verdict be re asonable, not inevitabl e, ba se d onthe e vid en ce pr es en te d a t tri al . ” U nit ed S ta te s v. Br ow ne , 505 F . 3d 1229 , 1253 (11th Cir. 2007) (internal quotation m arks and citation om itted). I n oth er w or ds, the que sti on i s w he the r re as ona ble m ind s c oul d have f

ound gui lt be y ond a re as ona

ble doubt, not

w he the r re as ona

ble m ind s m

ust have f ound gui lt be y ond a re as ona

ble doubt. S ee a lso U nit ed S ta te s v. Ca lde ro n, 127 F . 3d 1 314, 1324 (11th Cir. 1997) (“ It is not necessary that the evidence exclude every reasonable hy

poth esis of innocence or be w hollyinconsis tent with every co nc lus ione xc ep t tha t of gui lt, pr ovi de d th at

ar ea sona

ble tr ie r of

f ac t c oul d f

ind that the evidence established g uilt bey ond a reasonable doub t.”) (citation om itted). H er e, the re w as a m

ple e vid en ce f

ro m w hic h ar ea sona

ble j ur y c oul d32

co nc lud e be y ond a re as ona ble doubt tha t E lli sor

pos se sse d th e re qui sit e int en t t o de fr au d. I n a ddi tio n to the e vid en ce of the U tah m isc ondu ct

de sc ri be d a

bove , the G ove rn m en t a dduc ed

e vid en ce that a lth oughE lli sor c oll ec te d m one y

f ro m sc hool s an d bu sin es se s inthe nam e of the Ch ri stm as sho w , he spe nt the m one y on purchases for him self, includin g a suite at the Doubletree Hotel, a luxury car re nta l, and e xpe nsi ve c lothin g. B ey ond pay ing an in iti al de posi t and p ur ch as ing anins ur an ce bin de r, E lli sor too k no f urthe r ste ps t ow ar d pr oc ur ing the c onve nti on ce nte r. T he G ove rn m en t po rtray ed E lli sor a s havin g pe rf

orm ed the bare m ini m

um to p re se rv e the appe ar an ce that the sho ww oul d oc cur, so tha t he c oul d c ont inu e co ll ect in g m on ey

fro m sch oo ls – wh ic h h e d idrig ht up un ti l t he ev e o f th e sh ow. Te stim ony

at trial f latly contradicted Ellisor’ s claim s that the sho w w as spons ored by the U niv er sity

of Mi am i, the D oubl et

re e H ote l, the Ch ri stm as P al ac e, and the Miam i police and fire departm ents. T here w as no evidence that Ellisor wa s ever a diplo m atic liaison for the International Diplom atic Corps, and no evid ence that any am bassadors were to attend the sho w. E llisor never called any one to inform the m of the sho w ’ s c an ce llatio n, e ff ec tiv el y e m pti ed the Univ er sity

D ipl om at ic T ru st A cc ount

of it s r em ai nin g f

unds , and p ur ch as ed

aJa guar. F ina lly , the Governm ent em

phasized the great disparity betwee n what w as prom ised and what
w as de liv er ed . “ Ch ri stm as F ro m A ro und the W or ld” w as bil le d a s f eatur ing 2833

fo re igna m

ba ssa dor s, H ar

ry P ott er c hara ct er s, lavis h C hr istm as de co ratio ns, r af fl e pr iz es , and e ve n li ve r ei nde er . Whe n th e ch ildre n sh ow ed up at the c onve nti on center on the m orning o f D ecem ber 3, the conventio n center w as locked and bare. Ell is orto okth e st an d a ndtes ti fie d t ha t h e n ev er i nt en de d t o d efra udan y on e. T he j ur y w as f re e to d isb el ie ve E lli sor ’ s st at em en ts and t o take the m a s su bst an tiv e evidence to the contrary . See United States v. Brow n, 53 F. 3d 31 2, 314 (11th Cir. 1995 ) (“ [A ] state m en t by

ade fe ndant, if

dis be lie ve d by

the j ur y , m ay be considered as subs tantive evidence of the defendant’ s guilt . . . . T o be m ore specific . . . when a defendant chooses to testi fy , he runs the risk that if disb elieved the j ury m ight con clude the oppo site of his testim ony is true.” ) (e m

phasis, internal quot at ionm ar

ks, and c itatio n om itt ed ). “ Whe re som e co rr obor at ive e vid en ce of gui lt ex ist s f

or the c harg ed

of fe nse . . . and the de fe ndant t ak es the stand i n [ his ] own defense, the [d] efendant’ s testim ony , deny ing gu ilt, m ay establish, by

itself, el em en ts o f the of

fe nse . ” U nit ed

S ta te s v. W ill iam s, 390 F . 3d 1 319, 132 6 ( 11th Cir. 2004 ). “ This rule especia lly applies where the elem ents to be proved for a co nvi ct ioninc lud e hig hly sub j ec tiv e el em en ts: f

or e xa m ple , the de fe ndant’ s in te nt or kno w le dge . ” U nit ed

S ta te s v. S ve te , 200 8 U . S. App. L E X IS 621 9, a t *1 5–16 (1 1thCi r. Mar. 26, 200 8) ( quot ing Br ow n, 53 F . 3d at 31 5) ( int er na l qu otatio n m arks om itted). E llisor’s te stim ony , together w ith the m ount ain of evidenceThe statutory maxi mum term of imprisonment for mail fra ud is 20 y ear s. See 18 24 U.S.C. § 1341. 34 dis cu sse d a

bove , w as m or e than su ff ic ie nt t o su

ppor t the j ur y ’ s ve rd ic t of

gui lty be y ond a re as ona

ble doubt. W e the re fo re a ff irm the dis tr ic t c ourt a s to a ll co unt s. III . The pre sentence investigatio n report (“ PSI ”) suggested a base offense le vel of 7 for E llisor’s m ail fra ud conv ictions. U. S. S. G. § 2B1.1. The P SI f urther inc re as ed the ba se of

fe nse le ve l by : ( 1) six le ve ls unde r § 2B 1. 1( b) (1 )( D ) be ca use the loss was betwe en $30,000 and$70,000; (2) six levels under § 2B1.1(b)(2)( C) because the offe nse invo lved m ore than 250 vi ctim s; (3) two levels under § 2B1.1(b)(8)( A) because the offe nse invo lved the m isrepresentation that he was acting on behalf of an educational organization ; (4) tw o levels und er § 3A 1. 1( b) (1 ) be ca

use E lli sor

kne wor sho uld have kno w n th at

the vic tim s of

the of fe nse w er e vul ne ra

ble ; and ( 5) tw o le ve ls unde r § 3C 1. 1 be ca use E lli sor willfully obstructed justice during the proceedings . W ith no adj ustm ents, the total offense level w as theref

ore 25. W ith that to tal offense level and a crim inal histo ry cate gor y of I II , E lli sor ’ s S en te nc ing G uid el ine s r an ge w as 70 t o 87 m onths’ im pr iso nm en t. 24 Inthe pos t- Bo oke r se nte nc ing r eg im e, “ a se nte nc e m ay be r ev ie w ed

f orWe reviewboth the proce dural a nd substantive rea sonablene ss of the sentenc e under an 25 abuse- of-discr etion standard, G all, 552 U.S. at ___, 128 S. Ct . at 597, but the degree of de fe re nc e that is du e va

ri e s w iththe ty

pe of pr oc e dura l e rr or

a lle g e d. “ A d istri c t c ourt a bu se s it s discretion if it applies an inc orre ct leg al standar d, follows improper pr ocedur es in makingthe deter mination, or makes finding s of fa ct that ar e cle arly err oneous.” K lay

v. United Hea lthgr oup, Inc., 376 F .3d 1092, 1096 (11th Cir. 2004) (quotingMartin v. Automobili L amborghini Ex clusive, Inc., 307 F .3d 1332, 1336 (11th Cir. 2002)) (inter nal quotation marks omitted); see also Koon v. United States, 518 U.S. 81, 100, 116 S. Ct. 2035, 2047, 135 L . Ed. 2d 392 (1996) (“Adistrict court by

definition abuses its discretion whe n it makes an e rror of law.” ); Solantic, L L C v. Cit y

of Ne ptune B eac h, 410 F.3d 1250, 1253 ( 11th Cir. 2005) (“We re view the district court’s . . . a

pplication of the lawde novo, pre mised on the understa nding that application of a n improper leg al standar d is never w ithin a district court’s discre tion.”) (inter nal quotation marks and citation omitted). “Adistrict court may also abuse its discre tion by applying the law in an unrea sonable or inc orre ct manner .” Klay , 376 F.3d at 1096. We t he re fo re “ re vie w d e no vo the dis tr ic t c ourt ’s int e rp re tatio n o f t he Gu ide lin e s a

nd its application of the Guidelines to the fa cts,” a nd “[w]e review f

or cle ar e rror

the district court’s finding s of fa ct re g ardingwhether a def endant should re ceive an enha nced se ntence under the . . . Guidelines.” Campbe ll, 491 F.3d at 1315 (inter nal quotation marks and c itations omi tted). “A fac tual findingis clear ly

err oneous whe n althoug h there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the e ntire evide nce is lef t with the definite and f

irm conviction that a mistake ha s been 35 pr oc ed ur al or sub stanti ve unr ea sona

ble ne ss. ” U nit ed

S ta te s v. H unt , 459 F . 3d 1180 , 1182 n.3 (11th Cir. 2006). In G all v. United States, the S uprem e Court set fo rth a num be r of gr ound s f

or sig nif ic an t pr oc ed

ur al e rr or , inc lud ing “ fa ili ng t o calculate ( or im

properly calculating) the G uidelin es range, treating the Guidelines as m andatory , f

ailing to consider the § 355 3(a) f actors, selecting a sentence based on clearly err oneous fac ts, or f

ailing to adequately

explain the chosen sen tence. ” 552 U . S. ___ , 128 S . Ct . 586 , 597 , 169 L . E d. 2d 4 45 ( 2007 ). O nc e anappe llate co urt ha s satis fi ed

it se lf that the dis tr ic t c ourt f

oll ow ed pr ope r se nte nc ing procedure, the court then evaluates “ the subs tantive reasonableness of the sentence im pose d un de r anabuse -o f- dis cr et ionstandard . ” I d. 25committed.” United States v. Robertson, 493 F .3d 1322, 1330 (11th Cir. 2007) (interna l

qu otatio n ma

rk s and c itatio n o mitte d) . A t a

min imum, t

he re mus t be su

bs tanti a l e vid e nc e to support a fa ctual finding . I d. “The district court’s fa ctual finding s for purpose s of sentenc ing may be base d on, amongother thing s, evidenc e hea rd duringtrial, undisputed statements in the PSI , or evide nce pr esente d duringthe sentenc ing he aring .” United States v. Polar, 369 F .3d 1248, 1255 (11th Cir. 2004). Ellisor does not claim that his sentence was substantively unrea sonable. 26 El lis or a lso c onte nd e d th at un de r Unit e d St ate s v . B oo ke r, 54 3 U .S. 22 0, 12 5 S. Ct. 27 738, 160 L . Ed. 2d 621 (2005), a nd Blakely

v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 124 S. Ct. 2531, 159 L . Ed. 2d 403 (2004), his sente nce violate d the Ex P ost Fac to Clause, the Due Proc ess Clause of the Fif th Amendment, and his Six th Amendment rig ht to trial by jury beca use the district cour

t found and c onsidered se ntencingfac ts not found by a jury or admitted by

the def endant. Our case law cle arly

indicates that no such violation occ urre d here , wher e the district cour t treate d the SentencingGuidelines as a dvisory and conside red se ntencingfac ts that it found under a pr e po nd e ra

nc e of the e vid e nc e sta

nd ard . Se e Un ite d St ate s v . Sm ith , 4 80 F .3 d 1 27 7, 12 81 (1 1th Cir. 2007) (citingUnited States v. Chau, 426 F.3d 1318, 1322–23 ( 11th Cir. 2005)); United States v. Martinez, 434 F.3d 1318, 1323 & n.5 (11th Cir. 2006) (c iting United States v. Dunc an, 40 0 F .3 d 1 29 7, 13 07 (1 1th Cir . 2 00 5) ); Un ite d St ate s v . Ro dr igue z, 3 98 F .3 d 1 29 1, 13 00 (1 1th Cir . 2 00 5) . In a

ny c a se , E lli so r w ith dr e w h is c la im a s to thi s is su e at or a l argume nt. 36 In his brief, Ellisor lists several challenges to the sentencing p rocedure used b y t h e d i s t ri ct co u rt . In p ar tII I. A, i n fr a, we fi rs tco n s i d eran dre je ct El l i s o r’s 26 cl ai m s th at

the dis tr ic t c ourt e rr ed

in its im posi tio n of

c er ta in s en te nc ing en hanc em en ts. I n part

I II . B, inf ra , w e fi nd tha t the dis tr ic t c ourt di d no t c om m it p ro ce dura l erro r w i t h re s p ec tt o i t s g ra n to f a n up wa rdd ep ar tu re i n El l i s o r’s c r i mi n a l h i s t o ry c a t e g o ry. 27 A. 1. Ba s edo n i t s ca l cu l at i o n th at th e a m o u n to f l o s s s t emm i n g fr o m El l i s o r’sIn h is b ri e f, El lis or mis take nly

state s th at B ank

of Am e ri c a los t $3 ,8 30 . A s p ro pe rl y 28 calc ulated in the PSI , the bank a lso lost related fe es for a total of $3,914.49. We note, howe ver, that using the $3,830 figure w ould not chang e the ultimate ca lculation that the total loss ex cee ds $30,000. Ba sed on these f

igur es, the total loss is actually $41,834.51, not $41,878.51 as 29 c a l c u l at e d

i nth e P S I –

ani n s i g n i f

i c an td i s c r e p an c y.

37 fr au d sc he m e w as $41 , 878. 51, w hic h f al ls b etw ee n $3 0, 000 an d $7 0, 000, the district court im

posed a six-level enhancem ent to Ellisor’ s base offense level pur suant t o § 2 B1 . 1( b) (1 )( D ). E lli sor arg ue s th at

the tot al los s in curr ed

f el l be low $3 0,0 00 , warran ti ng on ly a fou r-l ev el en ha nc em en t. See U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(1)( C). E lli sor a cknow le dge s th at

se ve ra l sc hool s se nt a

tot al of $24 , 100 in c he ck s that w er e de posi te d inthe U niv er sity D ipl om at ic T ru st A cc ount . H e al so recognizes the loss to Bank of Am erica of $3,914.49, which was incurre d 28 be ca use E lli sor

w as able to w ith dr awf

unds f ro m c he ck s th at

ha d st op- paym en t or de rs pl aced on th em . Thes e two lo ss it em s eq ua l $ 28 ,01 4.4 9. At sentencing, the G overnm ent argued that additio nal item s easily placed the tot al a m ount

of los s w el l a

bove $30 , 000, inc lud ing los se s in curr ed by P ar ty Cater ers ($7, 804.93), the D oubl etree Hotel ( $1,657.47), and the Christm as Palac e by vir tue of F ed er al E xpr es s c harg es ( $1, 862. 62) . I n hi s br ie f, how ev er , E lli sor 29 spe ci fi ca lly

c ha lle nge s th e inc lus ionof los se s to the D oubl etre e H ote l and theOn the contr ary , we ha ve held that “ in calculating the a mount of loss, the Guidelines 30 require a district cour

t to take into acc ount not merely the cha rg ed conduc t, but rather a ll releva nt conduct, in ca lculatinga def endant’ s offe nse leve l.” United States v. F oley , 508 F.3d 627, 633 (11th Cir. 2007) (interna l quotation marks and citation omitted). 38 Christm as Palac e. E llisor argues that the los s to the Doubletree H otel is “ not part of the loss attribut able to the fraud char ged,” and the loss to the Christm as Palac e 30

“ wa s just the cost of doing b usiness and a bad investm ent by the Christm as Palac e. ” W e ar e unpersuaded by

this attem

pt to kn ock down straw m en. Even putti ng aside the los ses suffere d by the Doubletree Hotel and the Christm as Pa la ce , E lli sor

a dm its that the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s sum s in cl ude d th e am ount of $2, 495 whi ch Ell is orco ll ect edin cas h d is bu rs em en ts fro m St. Ti m ot hy’ s Pa ris h S ch oo l. Q uit e unde rs tanda

bly , E lli sor

of fe rs no arg um en t tha t this a m ount oug ht t o be excluded from

the total loss caused by

the fra ud schem e. A s it is a m athem atical fact that the sum

of $28,014.49 and $2 ,495 is greater than $30 ,000, the district court did no t com

m it clear error

in finding that the am ount of loss exceeded $30, 000. 2. Ellisor also argues that the district court erre d in the enhancem ents im posed ba se d onthe num

be r of vic tim s and the ir

vul ne ra bil ity . F ir st, he arg ue s th at the39

nu m be r of vi ct im s i s l es s t ha n 5 0, a t wo- le ve l en ha nc em en t. See U.S.S.G. § 2B 1. 1( b) (2 )( A ). H is the or y in supp ort of

thi s c al cu la tio n is that the onl y vic tim s of the f ra ud w er e the sc hool s, w hic h, a s e nti tie s, num be r no m or e than 23 . T he dis tr ic t c ourt r ej ec te d th is the or y and a cc ep te d th e G ove rn m en t’ s arg um en t tha t the
v i c t i ms o f

th e f r au dw e r e th e s tu d e n t s an dp ar e n t s – mo r e th a n 2 , 7 0 0 o f

th e m – who pa id$1 0 p er t ic ke t, as well as t he sch oo ls th atpa idforbu s t ran sp or ta ti on . A cc or din gly , the dis tr ic t c ourt a ppl ie d asix -l ev el e nhanc em en t purs uant t o § 2 B1 .1(b )(2 )(C) .

“ Whether a per son is a victim ” under the Sentencing Guidelines “ is a legal co nc lus ionw e re vie wde nov o. ” U nit ed S ta te s v. F ole y , 508 F . 3d 6 27, 632 ( 11th Cir. 2007 ) (c itation o m itted). T he relevant com m entary to the Guidelines defines a “ victim ” as “ any

person who sustained anypart of the ac tual loss determ ined unde r subs ec tio n ( b) (1 ). ” U . S. S. G . § 2B 1. 1 c m t. n. 1. A cc or din gly , “ the num be r of vic tim s is de fi ne d inr el at ionto the los s c al cu la tio n, ” Fo le y , 508 F . 3d at 63 3, w hic h intur

n is the “ re as ona

bly f or es ee ab le pe cuniary

harm that r es ult ed

f ro m the offense. ” U .S .S .G . § 2B1. 1 cm t. n. 3(A) (i). Appl y ing the se de fi nit ion s, w e cannot f ind that the c ourt e rr ed

in de te rm ini ng tha t the stu de nts and p ar en ts w er e pe rs ons w ho s ust ai ne d apart of the reasonably

foresee able pecuniary

harm that resulted from

the fra ud schem e. It w as40

the stu de nts and p ar en ts who e ac h pa id the $10 f ee pe r tic ke t; the sc hool s m er el y co lle ct ed and c onso lid at ed

that m one y

int o c he ck s f

or pur pose s of a dm ini str at ive ea se . I n an unpubl ish ed

opi nio n, w e re

j ec te d ade fe ndant’ s c la im that hu sbands an d w ive s sh oul d no t be c ount ed a s se parate vic tim s w he re the f ra udul en tly obtained m oney

“ wa s derived from

j ointl y held accounts or the invest m ent was m ad e on b eh al f of

both pe rs ons. ” U nit ed

S tate s v. D en sm or e, 210 F ed . Appx. 965 , 971 (1 1thCi r. 200 6) . W e re co gni ze d th at e ve n inthe c as e of

m one y he ld j oin tly by a m arital couple, both the husban d and wife count as victim s because eac h s u s t ai n s a “pa rt o f t h e a ct u al l o s s .” Id . A f o rt i o ri , t h er e i s n o m er i tt o El l i s o r’s ar gum en t tha t the f

ac t tha t the sc hool s c onso lid at ed the ti ck et m one y int o gr oup ch ec ks p re cl ude s th e co unt ing of the stu de nts and p ar en ts a s in div idu al vic tim s. Se co nd, E lli sor

arg ue s th at

the dis tr ic t c ourt vi olate d th e G uid el ine s by ap ply ing the tw o- le ve l e nhanc em en t f or vul ne ra ble vic tim s purs uant t o § 3A 1. 1( b) (2 ), be ca

use the dis tr ic t c ourt ha d a lr ea dy im pose d an e nhanc em en t under § 2B1.1(b)(2)(C ). E llisor m islabels the dis trict court’ s actions. In ac co rd an ce w iththe P SI , the dis tr ic t c ourt di d no t a ppl y § 3A 1. 1( b) (2 ) – atw ole ve l e nhanc em en t i f “ the of fe nse inv olv ed

alarg e num

be r of vul ne ra ble vic tim s” – bu t i nst ea d a

ppl ie d § 3 A 1. 1( b) (1 ), atw o- le ve l e nhanc em en t i f the vic tim is vuln erable. T hus, the com m entary forbidding an enhancem ent under41

§ 3A1.1(b)( 2) wher e the defe ndant has already rec eived an enhancem ent under § 2 B1 .1(b )(2 )(B) or ( C) i s i napp li cab le . See U.S.S.G. § 2 B1 .1 cmt. n .4(D) . 3. T he dis tr ic t c ourt a

ppl ie d atw o- le ve l e nhanc em en t purs uant t o § 2B 1. 1( b) (8 )( A ) be ca

use the of fe nse inv olv ed

the m isr ep re se ntatio n th at E lli sor w as a ct ing on b eh al f of

an e duc at ion al or ganiz at ion , nam el y , the U niv er sity of Mi am i. Ell is orco nt en ds th atth is fact ua l fi nd in g was no t s up po rte d i n t he reco rd . Sp ec if ic al ly , E lli sor

c la im s th at

it w as W al t H ine s w ho “ ove rs te ppe d hi s bo unds ” an d di d no t f

oll owthe U niv er sity

of Mi am i’ s in te rn al pol ic y

pr oc ed ur es . A t tri al , how ev er , H ine s te sti fi ed

that E lli sor

obt ai ne d th e Apr il 10, 200 3 le tte r fr om him under false prete nses – that it wouldbe used solely to garner corporate spons ors fo r booths –

and f urthe rm or e, that E lli sor

f or ge d H ine s’ s si gnatur e on s ubse que nt le tte rs on Univ er sit

y of Mi am i l ette rh ea d. O the r w itn es se s te sti fi ed that E lli sor cl ai m ed the U niv er sity

of Mi am i w as am ai n sp onso r of the sho w , and a cc or din g to W ri ght , E lli sor

c la im ed that the U niv er sity

of Mi am i ha d hi re d hi m

to coordinate the show because he w as “ a great prom oter.” A ccordingly , the district co urt di d no t e rr

in ap ply ing thi s e nhanc em en t.

4. E lli sor a lso c ha lle nge s th e dis tr ic t c ourt’ s im posi tio n of

ase nte nc ingTh e Go ve rnme nt a rgue d th at th e ob str

uc tio n- of -j us tic e e nh anc e me nt w a s a lso 31 war rante d by Ellisor’s disruptive behavior in the c ourtroom – such a s repe atedly interruptingand distractingthe pre siding judg e, attorne y s, and adve rse witnesse s, and surre ptitious ly ref err ing to a s h e a f o f n o t e s w h i l e t e s t i f

yi n g . H o w e v e r , th e d i s tr i c tc o urta d o p t e d th e f i n d i n g s o f th e P S I, which re commended the imposit ion of the enha nceme nt on the basis of per jury alone. 42 enhancem ent for the obstruction o f j ustice. S ection 3C1.1 provides for a two-le vel en hanc em en t [i ] f (A ) the de fe ndant w ill fu lly obs tr uc te d or im pe de d, or a tte m pte d to obstru ct or im pe de , the a dm ini str at ionof j ust ic e dur ing the c our se of the inv es tig at ion , pr ose cu tio n, or se nte nc ing of

the ins tant o ff

en se of co nvi ct ion , and ( B) the obs tr uc tiv e co nduc t r el at ed

to (i ) the defendant’ s offense of conviction and anyrelevant conduct; or (ii) a cl os el y rel at edoff

en se . . . . U.S.S.G. § 3 C1 .1. In this case, the district court foundthat Ellisor had willfully obstructed j ust ic e by c om m itt ing pe rj ur

y a s to m at er ia l m atte rs . W ithr es pe ct to pe rj ur y , the 31 G ove rn m en t i de nti fi ed

se ve n a lle ge dly

f al se and m at er ia l st at em en ts b y E lli sor that w er e dir ec tly

c ontra dic te d by

doc um en tary

e vid en ce and the te sti m ony of other witnesses: (1) that E llisor was the diplom atic liaison for the International D ipl om at ic Co rp s and h ad 56 am ba ssa dor s and g ove rn m en ts unde r co ntr ac t; (2 ) that the Ch ri stm as P al ac e ag re ed to donate de co ratio ns f

or the Ch ri stm as tr ee s and authorized Ellisor’ s use of its Federal E xpress account for the show; (3) that Ellisor spoke to th e fire departm ent about th e show and a f ire assem bly perm it fee; (4) that the presents for the show w ouldbe provided bythe police departm ent asEllisor’s claim that he ha d put on the Christmas show twice bef ore w as in violation of 32 th e d i s tr i c tc o urt ’ s r

u l i n gi nl i m i n e p r e c l u d i n gany s u c he v i d e n c e o r t e s t i m o ny. Th e Gu ide lin e s d e fi ne a

“ mate ri a l” state me nt a s a state me nt “ that, i f b e lie ve d, wo uld 33 te nd to i nf lue nc e or a ff e c t th e iss ue un de r d e te rm inatio n. ” U. S.S. G. § 3 C1. 1 c mt. n. 6. Un de r t his standard, w e have held that “the thr eshold for materiality is conspicuously

low.” United States v. Dede ker, 961 F .2d 164, 167 (11th Cir. 1992). The re quirements of pe rjury are that “(1) the testimony must be under oath or 34 aff irmation; (2) the testimony must be false; (3) the testimony must be material; and ( 4) the testimony must be g iven with the willful intent to provide false te stimony and not as a

result of a mistake, confusion, or f

aulty memory .” United States v. Sing h, 291 F.3d 756, 763 n.4 ( 11th Cir. 2002). 43 part of a T oy s-for-T ots prog ram ; (5) that W alt Hines w as suppo sed to not ify sc hool s onD ec em

be r 2 of the sho w ’ s c an ce llatio n; ( 6) that E lli sor ha d pu t onthe Ch ri stm as sho wtw ic e be fo re ; and ( 7) that the in- ro om m ovi es c harg ed

to 32 E lli sor ’ s r oom

a t the D oubl etre e H ote l w er e ro ck and r oll m ovi es or de re d by st ud en ts ass is ti ng wit h t he sh ow. O n a ppe al , E lli sor

c ont es ts the m at er ia lity

of the se state m en ts. 33 A lth oughpr ef

er ab le , it is not ne ce ssary

f or the dis tr ic t c ourt t o m ak e spe ci fi c fi ndi ngs as to ea chins tanc e of pe rj ur y ; w e m ay

a ff irm the dis tr ic t c ourt i f it ha s m ad e “ a ge ne ra l f

ind ing of obs tr uc tio n of j ust ic e that e nc om

pa sse s a ll of

the fa ct ua l pr ed ic at es of

pe rj ur y . ” U nit ed

S ta te s v. V al le

j o, 297 F . 3d 1 154, 116 8 ( 11th Cir. 2002 ) (internal quotation m arks and citation om itted). H ere, the district 34
co urt he ar d arg um en ts a s to e ac h sp ec if ic state m en t i de nti fi ed

by the G ove rn m en t and rej ected E llisor’s argum ent that the statem ents wer e im m aterial. T he courtUnder Booke r, af

ter c onsulting the Guide lines and ca lculatingthe ra ng e provide d for 35 there in, a district court must then consider seven f actor s set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) to re ach a re asonable sentenc e, name ly : “(1) the nature and cir cumstance s of the off ense a nd the history and c ha ra c te ri sti c s o f t

he de fe nd ant; [(2 )( a )] the ne e d to re fl e c t th e se ri ou sn e ss o f t he of fe ns e , to promote re spect for

the law, a

nd to provide just punishment for the off ense; [(2)(b) ] t he nee d for de te rr e nc e ; [( 2) (c )] the ne e d to pr ote c t th e pu bli c ; [( 2) (d )] the ne e d to pr ov ide the de fe nd ant w ith neede d educational or vocational trainingor medica l car e; [(3)] the kinds of sentence s available ; [(4)] t he Sentenc ing Guidelines rang e; [(5)] pertinent policy statements of the Sente ncing Commis sio n; [( 6) ] the ne e d to avo id u nw ante d s e nte nc ingdis pa ri tie s; a nd [(7 )] the ne e d to provide re stitut ion to victims .” United States v. Ta lley , 431 F.3d 784, 786 ( 11th Cir. 2005) 44 the n a dopt ed

the P SI ’ s f

ind ing s th at

E lli sor ’ s st at em en ts w er e expr es sly contradicted by

the trial testim ony

of num erous witnesses and subs tantial phy sical ev ide nc e, and tha t E lli sor ’ s st at em en ts am ount ed to pe rj ur y . T he r ec or d am

ply supp orts the c onc lus ionthat E lli sor ’ s st at em en ts w er e not m er el y de nia ls tha t he chopped d own the cherr

y tree. W e theref

ore find that the district court did n ot err in f ind ing that the state m en ts r el at ed to m at er ia l m atte rs , and p ro pe rl y appl ie d th e obstru ct ion -o f-

j ust ic e en hanc em en t. B. E lli sor ’ s part ing sho t i s th at the dis tr ic t c ourt c om

m itt ed sig nif ic an t pr oc ed ur al e rr or in its de ci sio n to gr an t an up w ar d de part ur e w ithr es pe ct

to his crim inal histo ry

category . Specifica lly , E llisor contend s that: (1) the district court tr eate d th e Se nte nc ing G uid el ine s a s m an da tor y ; ( 2) the c ourt r ef

er re d on ly to U. S. S. G. § 4A1.3(a )(2) and failed to take into con sideration the statu tory fac tors enum er at ed

in 18 U . S. C. § 35 53( a) ; and ( 3) the c ourt ba se d it s se nte nc e on 35(citing18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)). 45

cl earl y erro ne ou s fa ct s. Ac cording to th e PS I, Ellisor had a c rim inal histo ry category of I based uponhis arr es t and g uil ty ple a to tw o c harg es of

pe tit the ft in 1988 . H ow ev er , the Se n t en ci n g Gu i d el i n es p ro v i d e f o r t h e p o s s i b i l i t y o f a n up wa rdd ep ar tu re “ [i ]f reliable inform ation ind icates that the defendant’ s crim inal histo ry category subs tantially

under-repre sents the serious ness of the defendant’ s crim inal histo ry orth e li ke li ho odth atth e d efen da nt wil l co m m itot he r cri m es .” U.S.S.G. § 4A 1. 3( a) (1 ). B as es f

or an up w ar d de part

ur e inc lud e inf

orm at ionc onc er

nin g

“ [p ] ri or sim ilar m isc ondu ct

e sta bli she d by

ac ivi l a dj udi catio n or

by af ai lur e to com ply with an adm inistrative order,” and “ [p] rior sim ilar adult crim inal condu ct not resultin g in a crim inal convictio n.” U. S. S. G. § 4A1.3(a )(2)( C), (E ). In ac co rd an ce wi t h th es e b as es , t h e G o v ern m en ts ub m i t t ed ev i d en ce o f E l l i s o r’s D ec em be r 1999 a dm ini str at ive c itatio n inU tah r el at ed to his “ W as hin gto n D . C. on Tour” show, as w ell as evidence that E llisor never com plied with the February 2000 order of a djudication. T he Governm ent also sub m itted evidence of form al co m pla int s f ile d w iththe a tto rn ey

ge ne ra l of

N ewMe xic o in dic at ing that E lli sor also prom oted that sho w and collected over $30,000 from schools in California, Mi sso ur i, Co lor ad o, and A ri zo na ; no r ef unds w er e ev er

giv en . T he se c om

pla int s46

w er e furthe r co rr obor at ed by bank r ec or ds. E lli sor

the n pr oduc ed

tw o w itn es se s, his e x- gir lf

ri en d, A nge laS ai za

Ba ile y , and h is f

ri en d, Mark

B. W ei se r, w ho te st ifi edth atth ey

ha d h el pe d El li so r pr od uc e a n um be r of sh ows ov er t he y ears . On cr os s- ex am in at io n, t he Gov ern m en t es tabl is he d t ha t n on e o f th es e sh ows ch ar ge d af

ee f or a dm iss ion , and s ugge ste d th at the sho w s w er e not

suc ce ssf ul. Upon re vie wof

the r ec or d, w e cannot

say that the dis tr ic t c ourt e rr ed in its sentencing p rocedure. A fter e xpressly considering th e parties’ argum ents, the PS I, the Guidelines, and the fa ctors set forth in 18 U. S. C. § 355 3(a), the district court concluded th at neither cr im inal histo ry category I nor cr im inal histo ry

category II suf fi ci en tly r ep re se nte d th e se ri ousn es s of E lli sor ’ s c ri m ina l hi sto ry and the lik el iho od o f re ci div ism . A s to E lli sor ’ s f ir st arg um en t, it

is cl ear fr om

the tr an sc ri pt o f the se nte nc ing he ar ing that the dis tr ic t c ourt un de rs too d and e xpr es sly ac know le dge d th e advis or y na tur e of the G uid el ine s. N or did the e xte nt o f the c ourt’ s e va luatio n of the § 35 53( a) f

ac tor s am ount to procedural err or in this case. W e have re j ected the notion th at a district court m ust “ re ci te alaundr

y li st o f the § 35 53( a) f

ac tor s” in or de r to e vin ce the re as ona ble ne ss o f its se nte nc e. U nit ed S ta te s v. S co tt, 426 F . 3d 1 324, 132 9 ( 11th Ci r. 200 5) ; se e al so Unit ed S ta te s v. T al le y , 431 F . 3d 7 84, 786 ( 11th C ir . 200 5) (“ [W ] he n th e dis tr ic t c ourt c onsi de rs the f ac tor s of se ct ion355 3( a) , it

ne ed not47

dis cu ss e ac h of

the m . ”) . R athe r, w e ha ve he ld tha t a c ourt’ s e xpl ic it acknowledgm ent that it has consi dered a def endant’ s argum ents and the § 35 53(a) factors is sufficie nt to dem onstrate that it has adequately and properly

considered tho se f ac tor s. S co tt, 426 F . 3d at 13 30. H er e, the dis tr ic t c ourt m ad e cl ear that i t ha d “ co nsi de re d th e fa ct or s se t f orth i n 18 U . S. C. [ §] 355 3( a) (1 ) thr oughand inc lud ing ( 7) . ” T he c ourt f ound E lli sor ’ s of

fe nse to be “ re pr eh en sib le , to take m oney from y oung , im

pressionabl e and vulnerable children, children who had ev er y e xpe ct at ionthat the y

w er e goi ng t o a tte nd s om ethin g ve ry spe ci al . ” T he co urt a lso f

ound that “ Mr . E lli sor

ha s alon g tr ac k r ec or d of e nga gin g inf

ra udul en t be ha vio r that e vin ce s c om ple te and u tte r dis re gard

f or the pr ope rt

y of oth er s, and the re is no d oubt

in the c ourt’ s m ind

that M r. E lli sor

w oul d r es um e his pa tte rnof de ce itf ul c ondu ct

in the f uture if giv enam er e sla

p onthe w ri st. ” I n li ght

of the ev ide nc e, the c ourt w as “ co nvi nc ed that, giv enthe c hanc e, [ E lli sor ] w oul d do it a ll ove r ag ai n, and tha t the onl y w ay to pr ote ct

sm al l c hil dr enand o the rs f ro m [ his ] phony ope ratio ns i s to ke ep [ him ] be hin d bars . ” T he c ourt a ga in i ndi cate d th at it found th e term

of 87 m onth s’ im

prisonm ent to be “ a re asonable sentence after co nsi de ri ng 1 8 U . S. C. [ §] 355 3( a) (1 ) thr oughand i nc lud ing ( 7) . ” W e ar e w el l sa ti sf ie d, t he refo re, t ha t t he co ur t “ ad equa te ly con si de redth e § 35 53 (a) fa ct or s,” and that Ellisor’ s sentence wa s “ the product of conscienti ous delib eration.” See48

U nit ed S ta te s v. Cam

pbe ll, 491 F . 3d 1 306, 131 6 ( 11th C ir . 200 7) ; se e al so R ita v. U nit ed S ta te s, 551 U . S. __, 127 S . Ct . 245 6, 246 9, 168 L . E d. 2d 2 03 ( 2007 ) (h old ing that the de fe ndant’ s se nte nc e w as pr oc ed ur al ly r ea sona ble w he n th e dis tr ic t c ourt c onsi de re d th e part ie s’ arg um en ts and p ro vid ed ar ea sone d ba sis f

or its choice of sentence). Third, in supp ort of his argum ent that the district court based the sentence on clearly err oneous fac ts, E llisor claim s that “ the Court actually acknowledged that he m ay

have be en‘ spe cu la tin g’ in ev al ua tin g w ha t m ay have tr an spi re d inthe out-of-state m atters. ” Upon review of the tr anscript, it is clear that the district co urt di d no t i ndi cate that i t w as spe cu la tin g a s to whe the r E lli sor a ct ua lly co m m itt ed the out -o f- state a ct s. I nst ea d, the c om m en t aro se dur ing the c our se of ane xc hange in w hic h c ouns el f or E lli sor , S tuart

A de lst ei n, que sti one d w hy no fo rm al c harg es w er e fi le d a ga ins t E lli sor f or tho se inc ide nts : MR . A D E L ST E IN : A s f

ar a s a ssum ing that so m eo ne dr oppe d th e ba ll, w he the r it be the S ta te of U tah or N ewMe xic o or

the F BI or w ha t have y ou, it ’ s e as y

to as sum e that the y

e va luate d – T H E CO U RT : I don ’ t kn owif the y dr oppe d th e ba ll or

didn’ t dr op the ba ll. A ll I knowis that the re w er e no f orm al c harg es f

ile d. MR . A D E L ST E IN : A nd i t’ s e as y to as sum e that, a ft er

r ev ie wof

the case, they could no t prove any

crim inal actions on the part of Mr . Ellisor. TH E C OU RT : I guess I should n’ t speculate. W e should n’ t speculate. MR. AD EL ST EIN: I agree . T H E CO U RT : W e do n ot k noww ha t ha

ppe ne d.49

MR. AD EL ST EIN: I agree . T H E CO U RT : A ll I knowis I ha ve to re ly on the doc um en ts the G ove rn m en t ha s su

bm itt ed . W e do n ot f

ind , the re fo re , that the dis tr ic t c ourt ba se d it s de ci sio n to gr an t anupw ar d de part

ur e on c le ar ly

e rr one ous fa ct s. T he dis tr ic t c ourt f ound the ev ide nc e of

E lli sor ’ s pr ior

sim ilar m isc ondu ct

in U tah, Ca lif

or nia , Mi sso ur i, Co lor ad o, and A ri zo na– an a dm ini str at ive c itatio n inU tah, f orm al c om

pla int s fi le d w iththe N ewMe xic o a tto rn ey ge ne ra l, and c or

ro bor at ing bank r ec or ds – to be reliable and “ com

pletely unrebutted.” Spec ifically , the district court noted that the sho w s de sc ri be d by

A nge laS ai za

Ba ile y and M ar k W ei se r “ did

not inv olv e the collection of funds .” In sum , E llisor’s sentence wa s not procedurally unreasonable. IV. Fo r the r ea sons he re in s ta te d, the j udgm en t of the dis tr ic t c ourt i s AFFIR MED.