## United States Court of App eals

F O R T H E E I G H T H

C I R C U I T

__

__ __ __ __ _

No. 11 -2 95 8

__

__ __ __ __ _

Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca, *

* App el le e, *

*

v. *

*
Teres a Trem

us in i, *

* App el la nt

. *

__

__ __ __ __ _ App eal s fr om th e Uni te d S ta te s No. 11 -3 33 1 Dis tri ct Co ur t fo r th e

__

__ __ __ __ _ East ern Dis tri ct of M is so ur i.

Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca, *

* App el le e, *

*

v. *

*
Ro be rt S co tt Gray

, *

* App el la nt

. *

__ __ __ __ __ _

Su bm it te d: Marc h 1 6, 2 01 2 Fi le d: Ju ly 31, 2 01 2

__ __ __ __ __ _Befo re RI LEY, Chi ef J ud ge , SMITH an d S HEPHERD, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

__ __ __ __ __ _ RILEY, Chi ef J ud ge

.

Ro be rt Sco tt Gray an d Teres a Trem us in i co m m it te d va rio us cri m es rel at ed to

sc he m es to de frau d th e Uni te d St at es Po st al Serv ic e (USPS)

. Gray

, who pl ed gu il ty,

appe al s certai n se nt en ci ng ev id en ti ary ru li ng s an d th e di st ric t co ur t’s lo ss cal cu la ti on 1

wit h res pe ct to hi s se nt en ce. Trem us in i was co nv ic te d fo ll owi ng a jury tri al an d no w

ap pe al s th e di st ric t co ur t’s (1 ) ad m is si on of pa rti cu la r ou t-o f-co ur t st at em en ts m ad e by Gray

, (2 ) refu sa l to gi ve Trem us in i’s req ue st ed jury in st ru ct io ns , an d (3 ) de ni al of

he r m ot io n fo r a jud gm en t o f acq ui tt al

. W e aff irm.

I. BACKGRO UND

A. Fac tua l Ba ck gr ou nd 2

1. Fra ud Gray was th e own er of SG Pri nt & Mai l, In c. (SG Pri nt ), whi ch pr ov id ed di rect

m ai l serv ic es fo r it s cl ie nt s. Th e cl ie nt s p ai d SG Pri nt to pr ep are di rect m ai li ng s by

ad dr es si ng each m ai l pi ece a n d s or ti ng th e m ai l pi eces by ad dr es s an d zi p co de fo r bu lk m ai li ng

. Trem

us in i was th e Fes tu s, Mi ss ou ri, Po st m as te r fro m Decem be r 20 05

to Decem be r 20 06 . F ro m 20 05 th ro ug h 20 07 , Gr ay de frau de d th e USPS us in g two

sc he m es

. Bo th sc he m es in vo lv ed Don na Bec km an , an SG Pri nt em pl oyee, ta ki ng SG 3

Pri nt ’s bu lk m ai li ng fo rm s to th e Fes tu s Po st Offi ce fo r ap pr ov al

. W hi le th e sc he m es

The Hon or ab le Ro dn ey W

. Si pp el

, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e East ern 1 Dis tri ct of M is so ur i.

“ W e pr es en t th e fact s [ag ai ns t Trem us in i] in th e l i g h t m os t fav or ab le to th e 2 jury’ s v erd ic t.” Un it ed Sta te s v . Ful le r, 55 7 F .3d 85 9, 8 62 (8t h C ir. 2 00 9)

.

In se nt en ci ng Gray

, th e di st ric t co u r t refe rred to th ree sc he m es , bu t two are 3

va ria ti on s o n t he same sch em e.

-2

-were on go in g, G r a y p ai d $1 0,0 00 to Mi ch ael Jo ne s, a su pe rv is or at th e Fes tu s Po st

Offi ce, an d m ad e two $1 0,0 00 pa y m en ts to Trem us in i.

Bu lk po st ag e can be pa id us in g se ve ral m et ho ds

. One m et ho d is affi xi ng a

un iq ue au th or iz ed m ai li ng pe rm it im pr in t in di ci a on th e m ai l it se lf. Ano th er m et ho d

is us in g st am

ps

. The m ai le r m

us t p r e p a r e a Fo rm 81 25 fo r each de st in at io n po st
of fic e, li st in g th e m et ho d of pa y m en t fo r each pi ece m ai le d to th at po st of fic e, an d a
Fo rm 36 02

, whi ch su m

m ari zes th e Fo rm 81 25 s. The bu lk m ai le r m us t de li ve r th e

m ai li ng an d two se ts of each fo rm to a po st al wor ke r, who is res po ns ib le fo r ve rif y in g th e accu racy of th e fo rm s. Po st al em pl oyees st am

p on e se t of th e fo rm s an d ret ur n th em to th e m ai le r, ke ep in g th e ot he r se t fo r USPS reco rd s. The m ai le r pa y s th e to ta l

po st ag e d ue , m in us th e v al ue of a ny sta m ps us ed , as i nd ic at ed on th e Fo rm 36 02

.

The m ai le r ha s th e op ti on of tra ns po rti ng th e m ai l to th e de st in at io n po st of fic es in st ead of ha vi ng USPS d o s o

. SG Pri nt sh ip pe d th e m ai l, al on g wit h th e st am pe d

Fo rm 81 25 s, to de st in at io n po st of fic es us in g UPS, a pr iv at e carr ie r. The Fo rm 81 25 s in di cat ed SG Pri n t p ai d th e po st ag e. Fes tu s po st al em pl oyees ne ve r ve rif

ie d SG

Pri nt ’s m ai l m at ch ed th e fo rm s.

In th e fir st sc he m e, Bec km an , at Gray ’s di rect io n, cl ai m ed on th e po st al fo rm s th at SG Pri nt ha d us ed an in fla te d nu m be r of st am

ps , th ereb y de crea si n g th e ne t

p os ta ge du e. Gray swi tc he d sc he m es aft er Trem us in i to ld hi m of a USPS

in ve st ig at io n in to hi s act iv it ie s. In th e se co nd sc he m e, Gray ha d Bec km an rem ov e

so m e of th e Fo rm 81 25 s fro m USPS’s se ts

. As a res ul t, po st al em pl oyees st am

pe d as

pa id nu m ero us Fo rm 81 25 s th at were no t act ua ll y pa id

, al lo win g SG Pri nt to m ai l th e it em s l is te d o n t he m is si ng Fo rm 81 25 s fo r free

.

2. In ve st ig at io n
On Ju ne 8, 20 06

, Po st al In sp ect or Ja m es Pi tt erl e wen t to th e Fes tu s Po st Offi ce

to in ve st ig at e rep or ts of pr ob le m s ve rif y in g th e m ai l. Dur in g th is vi si t, Trem us in i

-3

-a d mi tt ed ne it he r sh e no r he r em pl oyees ve rif

ie d SG Pri nt ’s fo rm s, ev en th ou gh

Trem u s i n i kn ew th is was im

pr op er. In sp ect or Pi tt erl e to ld Trem us in i th is pr act ic e

was un acce pt ab le

. The sa m e da y , In sp ect or Pi tt erl e real iz ed so m e of SG Pri nt ’s Fo rm
36 02 s cl ai m ed a su sp ic io us ly hig h p erce nt ag e o f st am ps

. 4

O n Ju ne 19

, 20 06

, Ja m es W il li am s, a USPS reg io na l m an ag er, wen t t o t h e
Fes tu s Po st Offi ce to ad dr es s co m pl ai nt s fro m a n ot he r bu lk m ai le r co nc ern in g SG

Pri nt ge tt in g pr efer en ti al tre at m en t. Trem us in i to ld W il li am s th e Fes tu s Po st Offi ce

was fo ll owi ng th e pr op er pr oc ed ur es an d sh e pe rs on al ly wen t to SG Pri nt ev ery da y

to ve rif y th e m ai l.

In la te su m

m er or earl y fal l 20 06

, In sp ect or Pi tt erl e to ld Trem us in i he

di sc ov ered SG Pri nt po ss ib ly was cl ai m in g m or e st am ps th an it act ua ll y us ed

. Afte r th is di sc us si on , SG Pri nt cl ai m ed to us e far fewer sta m ps

. Trem us in i la te r ad m it te d

sh e ha d i n f

o r med Gray of th e po st al in ve st ig at io n aft er th is pa rti cu la r co nv ers at io n wit h In sp ect or

Pit te rle

.

I n t he fal l of 20 06

, In sp ect or Pi tt erl e le arn ed Trem us in i ha d rece iv ed tw o $1 0,0 00 ch eck s fro m Gray in Aug us t 20 06

. On Decem be r 12

, 20 06

, In sp ect or Pi tt erl e

an d Sp eci al Age nt Bi ll Hen ck en of th e USPS Offi ce of In sp ect or Gen eral in te rv ie wed

Trem us in i. Trem

us in i ad m it te d fai li ng to ve rif y SG Pri nt ’s m ai l. Afte r th e ag en t s

as ke d Tre m

us in i wh et he r sh e h ad rece iv ed an y th in g of val ue fro m Gray , Trem

us in i

sa id Gray le nt he r $1 0,0 00

. Tre mu s i n i di d no t ad m it to th e se co nd $1 0,0 00 ch eck

un ti l th e ag en ts co nf

ro nt ed he r wit h a co py of th e ch eck

. Trem us in i th en cl ai m ed th e

se co nd pa y m en t was al so a lo an

. The re was no lo an do cu m en ta ti on , an d Trem us in i’s

ba nk reco rd s d id no t i nd ic at e sh e was rep ay in g a lo an to Gray

.

In sp ect or Pi tt erl e te st ifi ed m os t bu lk m ai le rs u s e p r i n te d in di ci a in st ead 4 be cau se it is ch eap er an d fa st er.

-4

-B. Pro cedu ra l Ba ck gr ou nd

Gray pl ed gu il ty, pu rs ua nt to a pl ea ag reem en t, to fiv e co un ts of m ai l frau d, in

vi ol at io n of 18 U.S.C. § 13 41 ; fo ur co un ts of us in g a fal se do cu m en t/ fal se st at em en t,
in vi ol at io n of 18 U.S.C. § 10 01 ; an d th ree co un ts of br ib ery—off eri ng a gr at ui ty, in

vi ol at io n of 18 U.S.C. § 20 1( c). Gray m ai nt ai ne d th e am ou nt of lo ss was lo wer th an th e go ve rn m en t cl ai med

. A gr an d jury ch arg ed Trem us in i wit h two co un ts of

br ib ery—recei vi ng an il le ga l gr at ui ty b y a pu bl ic of fic ia l, in vi ol at io n of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2 an d 2 01 (c)( 1) (B), t o wh ic h Tre m us in i p le d n ot gu il ty. 5

1. Gra y
At Gray ’s s en te nc in g h e a r i ng , I ns pe ct or Pi tt erl e te st ifi ed ab ou t th e m on et ary lo ss fro m th e st am

p sc he m e. By ex am in in g SG Pri nt ’s ba nk reco rd s an d USPS’s sa le s

reco rd s, In sp ect or Pi tt erl e de te rm in ed SG Pri nt bo ug ht st am ps on ly at th e Fes tu s an d Crystal Ci ty, Mi ss ou ri, po st of fic es

. Fo r th e y ears 20 05 an d 20 06

, In sp ect or Pi tt erl e

su bt ract ed th e va lu e of th e st am ps SG Pri nt bo ug ht fro m

th e v al ue of a ll st am

ps SG

Pri nt cl ai m ed on it s Fo rm 36 02 s, de m on st rat in g a va ria nc e an d res ul ti ng in a lo ss of
$2 ,27 0,9 47 .10 fro m

th e st am p s ch em e.

The di st ric t co ur t refu se d to cred it Gray fo r st am ps he cl ai m ed SG Pri nt bo ug ht

at po st of fic es ot he r th an th os e in Fes tu s an d C ry st al Cit y be cau se th e di st ric t co ur t
cred it ed In sp ect or Pi tt erl e’s te st i mo n y t h a t SG Pri nt di d no t bu y st am ps at ot he r lo cat io ns

. In do in g so , th e di st ric t co ur t reject ed th e va gu e te st im on y of Ro be rt Bee rs ,

an em pl oyee of SG Pri nt
, who cl ai m ed he so m et im es bo ug ht st am ps fo r SG Pri nt fro m

ot he r po st of

fic es , n o t i n g Bee rs di d no t rem em be r ho w m an y st am

ps he bo ug ht or whe n o r ho w oft en he di d s o, an d n o d oc um en ta ti on su pp or te d s uc h p ur ch as es

.

Bec km an pl ed gu il ty t o two co un ts of m ai l frau d, se e 18 U.S.C. § 1 34 1, an d 5 Jo ne s pl ed gu il ty to on e co un t of br ib ery—recei vi ng an il le ga l gr at ui ty, se e 18 U.S.C. § 2 01 (c)( 1) (B).

-5

-Po st al In sp ect or Mar k Hall is ey te st ifi ed ab ou t th e am ou nt of lo ss fro m Gray ’s

se co nd sc he m e. In sp ect or Hall is ey su bt ract ed th e nu m be r of it em s li st ed on SG

Pri nt ’s se t of po st al fo rm s fro m th e nu m be r of it em s li st ed on USPS’s se t. In sp ect or Hall is ey in it ia ll y rep or te d a $1 ,71 3,9 92 .44 lo ss fro m th e se co nd sc he m e. On cr os sex am in at io n, In sp ect or Hall is ey ad m it te d to se ve ral erro rs i n hi s cal cu la ti on

. In sp ect or Hallise y co rr ec te d the ca lcul at io n m is ta ke s an d sa id Gray sh ou ld be cred it ed
$1 4,9 02 .02

. Afte r In sp ect or Hall is ey ’s rev is ed te st im on y , th e go ve rn m en t co nc ed ed Gray sh ou ld be cred it ed an ad di ti on al $7 5,4 07 .22 fo r pa y m en ts SG Pri nt m ad e to
USPS in 20 07

, red uc in g th e go ve rn m en t’s cal cu la ti on of lo ss fro m th e se co nd sc he m e

to $1 ,62 3,6 83 .20

.

Gray cl ai m ed th e am ou nt of lo ss sh ou ld be de crea se d fu rth er be cau se de st in at io n po st of

fic es so m et im es fai le d to de li v er m ai l se nt by SG Pri nt an d SG

Pri nt “ was te d” so m e m ai l in th e pr od uc ti on pr oc es s, su ch th at SG ne ve r se nt it

, ev en th ou gh th e m ai l ha d po st ag e at ta ch ed

. The di st ric t co ur t r e jecte d th es e arg um en ts

. W it h re ga rd to USPS’s al le ge d fai lu re to de li ve r so m e m ai l, th e di st ric t co ur t n ot ed

an y cla im ba se d o n USP S’s de li ve ry fai lu res ha d t o b e ad

jud ic at ed els ewh ere.

The di st ric t cou rt det erm in ed USPS l os t $ 2,2 70 ,94 7.1 0 fr om th e fir st sc he m e

an d $1 ,62 3,6 83 .00 fro m th e se co n d s c he m e, fo r a to ta l lo ss of $3 ,89 4,6 30 .10

. The

di s t r i c t co ur t se nt en ced Gray to 51 m on th s im pr is on m en t, th ree y ears su pe rv is ed

rel eas e, an d $ 3,8 94 ,63 0.1 0 i n re st it ut io n.

Gray ap pe al s, arg ui ng th e di st ric t co ur t erre d in cal cu la ti ng th e am ou nt of lo ss

.

-6

-2. Tre m us in i

a. Coc on sp ir at or Sta tements

Dur in g tri al

, th e go ve rn m en t to ld th e di st ric t co ur t it in te nd ed to in tro du ce ou tof -co ur t st at em en ts by Gray —a co co ns pi rat or

—re ga rd in g Tr e musi ni ’s ro le in th e frau d. See Fed

. R. Evi d. 80 1( d) (2 )(E). The di st ric t co ur t fo un d by a pr ep on de ran ce 6

of th e ev id en ce Trem

us in i joi ne d Gra y’s co ns pi racy to de frau d USPS, at th e la te st
, whe n sh e in fo rm ed Gray of th e in ve st ig at io n. The di st ric t co ur t th eref or e

pr ov is io na ll y ad m it te d “ th e st at em en ts m ad e by th e co co ns pi rat or s in fu rth eran ce of

th e co ns pi racy.”

The go ve rn m en t th en in tro du ced

, ov er Trem us in i’s he ars ay ob

jecti on s, se ve ral

ou t-o f-co ur t st at em en ts by Gray

. The di st ric t co ur t di d no t m ak e a fin al Uni te d St at es

v. Bel l, 57 3 F.2 d 10 40

, 10 44 (8 th Ci r. 19 78 ), de te rm in at io n at th e cl os e of th e

ev id en ce on th e st at em en ts ’ ad m is si bi li ty, an d Trem us in i di d no t req ue st a fin al Bel l

de ci si on

.

b. Mot io ns for Acqui tta l, Co nv ic tio n, an d Sent enci ng The di st ric t cou rt den ie d Trem us in i’s m ot io ns fo r acq ui tt al at th e cl os e of th e

go ve rn m en t’s case an d at th e cl os e of al l th e ev id en ce. The di st ric t cou rt refu se d to gi ve th e sp eci fic jury in st ru ct io ns Trem us in i req ue st ed

. The jury fo un d Trem us in i

gu il ty on bo th co un ts

. On Aug us t 26

, 20 11

, th e di st ric t co ur t se nt en ced Trem us in i to

twen ty-fou r m on th s i m

pr is on m en t.

Trem us in i ap pe al s, ch al le ng in g th e di st ric t co ur t’s (1 ) ad m is si on of Gray ’s ou tof -co ur t st at em en ts , (2) refu sa l t o g iv e Trem us in i’s re qu es te d ju ry

in st ru ct io ns , a nd (3 ) de ni al of h er m ot io ns for acq ui tt al

.

At t he ti m e o f tri al , R

ul e 80 1( d) (2 )(E) pr ov id ed a st at em en t is no t h ears ay if 6

“ [t]he st at em en t is of

fere d ag ai ns t a pa rty” an d was m ad e by th e pa rty’ s co co ns pi rat or

“ du rin g t he co ur se an d i n fu rth eran ce o f th e co ns pi racy.”

-7

-II

. DISCUSS IO N

A. Gra y Gray arg ue s th e di st ric t co ur t’s lo ss cal cu la ti on do es no t refl ect th e “ fai r m ark et

va lu e of se rv ic es pr ov id ed to [Gray] le ss th e am ou nt act ua ll y pa id fo r th os e se rv ic es ”

be cau se th e di st ric t co ur t erro ne ou sl y (1 ) ex cl ud ed e v i d e n c e o f m ai l USPS di d no t
de li ve r, (2 ) on ly co ns id ered st am ps S G Pri nt bo ug ht at th e Fes tu s an d Crystal Ci ty

po st of fic es , an d (3) r el ie d o n In sp ect or Hall is ey ’s fau lt y tes ti m on y

ab ou t lo ss fro m th e se co nd sch em e.

“ W e rev ie w th e di st ric t co ur t’s lo ss cal cu la ti on fo r cl ear erro r an d wil l affi rm ‘unl es s it is no t s up po rte d b y su bs ta nt ia l evi de nc e, was ba se d on an erro ne ou s vi ew of th e la w, or [we ha ve ] a fir m co nv ic ti on th at th ere was a m is ta ke aft er rev ie win g th e

en ti re reco r d

. ’” U n i te d St at es v. McKa nr y , 62 8 F.3 d 10 10

, 10 19 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 ) (q uo ti ng Uni te d St at es v. The im er, 55 7 F.3 d 57 6, 57 8 ( 8 th Ci r. 20 09 )). W e rev ie w

a di st ric t co ur t’s ev id en ti ary ru li ng s fo r a “ cl ear an d pr ejud ic ia l ab us e of di sc ret io n.”

Uni te d S ta te s v . McCr ack en , 11 0 F .3d 53 5, 5 42 (8t h C ir. 1 99 7)

.

1. Ev id enti ar y Rul in gs Gray fir st as se rts th e di st ric t co ur t erro ne ou sl y c a l c ul at ed th e lo ss us in g th e

nu m be r of it em s SG Pri nt cl ai m ed on it s fo rm s, rat he r th an th e nu m be r of it em s USPS

act ua ll y m ai le d. Acco rd in g to Gray

, th e ex cl ud ed ev id en ce sh ows USPS m ai le d le ss of SG Pri nt ’s m ai l th an th e go ve rn m en t cl ai m ed du e to ei th er was te in th e pr od uc ti on

pr oc es s o r de li ve ry

fai lu res by U SPS.

“ Und er th e [Un it ed St at es Sen te nc in g Gui de li ne s (U.S.S.G.)], th e ge ne ral ru le

is th at ‘los s is th e gr eat er of act ua l or in te nd ed lo ss .’ ” Uni te d St at es v. Mi tc he ll

, 60 8

F.3 d 38 4, 38 7 (8 th Ci r. 20 10 ) (q uo ti ng U.S.S.G. § 2B 1.1

, cm t. 3( A)). Gray co nt en ds

“ a rem an d fo r re-s en te nc in g i s req ui red ” to th e ex te nt th e go ve rn m en t “ at te m pt s to

arg ue th at th e nu m

be rs b e i n g pr es en te d [at Gray ’s se nt en ci ng he ari ng ] were a cal cu la ti on of in te nd ed

, no t act ua l, lo ss ” be cau se th e go ve rn m en t arg ue d on ly act ua l

-8

-lo ss in th e di st ric t cou rt. W e ne ed no t reach th is is su e be cau se th e di st ric t cou rt di d

no t cl earl y

err i n c al cu la ti ng th e act ua l l os s ca us ed by G ray’ s fr au d.

Actu al lo ss is “ th e reas on ab ly fo res eeab le pe cu ni ary ha rm th at res ul te d fro m th e of fen se .” U.S.S.G. § 2 B 1

. 1

, c mt

. 3( A)(i ). The di st ric t co ur t m us t reas on ab ly

es ti m at e th e am ou nt of lo ss fro m frau d us in g th e pr ep on de ra n c e of th e ev id en ce

st an da rd

, an d ne ed no t m ak e an ex act de te rm in at io n. See Uni te d St at es v. Hatc he tt
, 62 2 F.3 d 98 4, 98 7 (8 th Ci r. 20 10 ); se e al so U.S.S.G. § 2B 1.1

, cm t. 3( C) (“ The co ur t

ne ed on ly m ak e a rea so na bl e es ti m at e o f th e lo ss .”).

The act ua l lo ss Gray ’s frau d cau se d was th e va lu e of th e m ai l se rv ic es SG Pri nt
cl ai m ed on it s fo rm s— an d no t, as Gray co nt en ds

, on ly th e va lu e of th e m ai l USPS

act ua ll y de li ve red

. See U.S.S.G. § 2B 1.1

, cm t. 3 ( C ) (i) (s ta ti ng th e di st ric t co ur t’s

es ti m at e of t h e lo ss sh ou ld be ba se d on “ [t]he fai r m ark et va lu e of th e pr op ert y

un la wfu ll y ta ke n” ); Uni te d St at es v. Si m ps on , 53 8 F.3 d 45 9, 46 1 (6 th C ir. 20 08 ) (ex pl ai ni ng th e lo ss fro m frau d is th e fai r m ark et va lu e of th e it ems o r s e rv ic es frau du le nt ly obt ai ne d) ; see als o Uni te d Stat es v. Mas ek

, 58 8 F.3d 12 83

, 12 88 (10 th

Ci r. 20 09 ) (cl ari fy in g th e pu rp os e of th e se nt en ci ng he ari ng is no t “ to co nd uc t a fin al

acco un ti ng be twee n” th e pa rti es ). If Gray ha d no t en ga ge d in an y frau d, SG Pri nt

ne ces sa ril y wou ld ha ve pa id fo r th e m ai l it cl ai m ed on i t s f o rm s, reg ard le ss of

de li ve ry fai lu res or was te in th e pr od uc ti on pr oc es s. Gray ’s pr of fere d ev id en ce is no t
rel ev an t to a cal cu la ti on of act ua l lo ss fo r th e fai r m ark et va lu e of th e se rv ic es Gray

to ok th ro ug h hi s frau d. The di st ric t co ur t di d no t ab us e it s di sc ret io n in ex cl ud in g th e

ev id en ce.

2. Lo ca tio ns Whe re SG Print Bo ug ht Sta m ps The di st ric t cou rt di d no t clea rly err in co ns id eri ng on ly stamps bo ug ht at th e
Fes tu s an d Crystal Ci ty po st of fic es

. The di st ric t co ur t was en ti tl ed to cred it In sp ect or Pi tt erl e’s te st i mo n y t h a t he fo un d no ev id en ce SG Pri nt bo ug ht st am ps in ot he r lo cat io ns , reject in g Bee rs ’s te st im on y to th e co nt rary. See Uni te d St at es v. Jo ne s, 62 8

-9

-F.3 d 10 44

, 10 47 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 ) (d ecl ari ng th e di st ric t co ur t’s f i nd in gs on wit ne ss cred ib il it y are “ vi rtu al ly un rev ie wab le on ap pe al ”) (q uo ti ng Uni te d St at es v. Jo hn so n,
60 1 F .3d 86 9, 8 72 (8t h C ir. 2 01 0) ) (i nt ern al qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d)

.

3. In sp ecto r Ha ll is ey ’s Tes timony

Fi na lly

, G ra

y m ai nta ins In spe ct or H alli se y ’s cal cu la ti on of lo ss fro m th e se co nd

sc he m e was un rel ia bl e be cau se th e sp read sh eet I n s p ect or Hall is ey us ed ha d in pu t

erro rs

. On red ire ct ex am in at io n, In sp ect or Hall is ey co rrec te d th e erro r s id en ti fie d

du rin g cro ss -ex am in at io n, an d Gray do es no t po in t to an y o t h er erro rs

. Rel y in g on
In sp ect or Hall is ey ’s te st im on y was a reas on ab le m e th od fo r th e di st ric t co ur t to

es ti m at e th e lo ss an d was no t cl ear erro r. See McKa nr y , 62 8 F.3 d at 10 19 ; cf. Uni te d

St at es v. Lewis

, 55 7 F.3 d 60 1, 61 5 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 ) (co nc lu di ng th e di st ric t co ur t di d

no t cl earl y err i n m ak in g “ ap pr ox im at io ns an d ro un di ng ” in cal cu la ti ng th e am ou nt
of lo ss for pu rp os es of o rd eri ng res ti tu ti on ).

B. Tre m us in i

1. Coc on sp ir at or Sta tements

Trem us in i co nt en ds th e d i s tri ct co ur t im pr op erl y ad m it te d Gray ’s s ta te m en ts

to th ree fo rm er SG Pri nt em pl oyees— Bec km an , Wi ll ia m Men kh us , an d Ri ck

DeCo ll o—

un de r th e co co ns pi rat or ex cep ti on to th e he ars ay ru le

. Bec km an te st ifi ed Gray to ld he r he ga ve Trem us in i $1 0,0 00 to se cu re Trem us in i’s as si st an ce, an d whe n
Bec km an ex pr es se d co nc ern ab ou t in vo lv in g Trem us in i, Gray reas su red Bec km an th at wit h th is pa y

m en t, “ it wou ld al l be ok ay .” Men kh us an d DeCo ll o cl ai m ed Gray

t o l d t h e m Gray wan te d to br ib e a po st al em pl oyee an d la te r rep or te d he g a v e
Trem us in i m on ey , ex pl ai ni ng t o M en kh us th at Gray m ad e th e pa y m en t lo ok li ke a lo an

.

In ge ne ral , an ou t-o f-co ur t sta te m en t offe red “ to pr ov e th e tr ut h o f th e m at te r

as se rte d” in th e st at em en t i s in ad m is si bl e he ars ay

. Fed

. R. Evi d. 80 1( c), 80 2. A

st at em en t by a “ co co ns pi rat or of a pa rty du rin g t he co ur se an d i n fu rth eran ce o f th e

-1 0-co ns pi racy” is no t he ars ay whe n it is of fere d ag ai ns t th at pa rty. Fed

. R. Evi d.

80 1( d) (2 )(E). In Bel l, 57 3 F.2d at 10 44

, we es ta bl is he d a pr oc ed ur e fo r ad m it ti ng a

co co ns pi rat or ’s st at em en t:

If th e pr os ecu to r pr op ou nd s a qu es ti on whi ch ob vi ou sl y req ui res

a wit ne ss to reco un t an ou t-o f-co ur t de cl a r a t io n of an al le ge d

co co ns pi rat or , th e co ur t, up on a ti m el y an d ap pr op ria te ob jecti on by th e de fen da nt
, m ay co nd it io na ll y ad m it th e st at em en t. At th e sa m e ti m e, th e

co ur t sh ou ld

, on th e reco rd

, cau ti on th e pa rti es (a) t ha t t he st at em en t is be in g ad m it te d su bjec t to de fen da nt ’s ob jecti on ; (b ) th at th e go ve rn m en t

w il l be req ui red to pr ov e by a pr ep on de ran ce of th e in de pe n d e n t

ev id en ce th at th e st at em en t was m ad e by a co co ns pi r a t o r d ur in g th e

co ur se an d in fu rth eran ce of th e co ns pi racy; (c) th at at th e co nc lu si on of al l th e ev id en ce th e co ur t wil l m ak e an ex pl ic it de te rm in at io n f o r th e

reco rd reg ard in g th e ad m is si bi li ty of th e st at em en t; an d (d ) th at if th e

co ur t de te rm in e s t h a t th e go ve rn m en t ha s fai le d to carr y th e bu rd en de li ne at ed in (b ) ab ov e, th e co ur t wil l, up on ap pr op ria te m ot io n, de cl are

a m is tri a l

, u n l e s s a cau ti on ary in st ru ct io n to th e jury to di sr eg ard th e st at em en t wo ul d s uf

fic e to cu re an y

pre jud ic e.

Trem us in i co nt en ds Bel l req ui res rev ers i n g t h e di st ric t co ur t fo r fai li ng to
de te rm in e whe th er each of Gray ’s al le ge d s ta te m en ts were m ad e du rin g an d in

fu rth eran ce of th e co ns pi racy. Howev er, “ [t]he pr oc ed ur es o u t l i ne d in Bel l are fle xi bl e an d do no t req ui re r e v e r s al fo r fai lu re to fo ll ow th os e pr oc ed ur es ab se nt a sh owi ng of p reju di ce.” M cCra ck en , 11 0 F .3d at 5 42

.

Fi rs t, we reject Trem

us in i’s arg um en t th at Gray ’s st at em en ts were n o t m ad e du rin g a co ns pi racy in vo lv in g Trem us in i be cau se th e st at em en ts m ig ht ha ve be en

m ad e be fo re Trem

us in i joi ne d th e co ns pi racy. “ [S]tat em en ts m ad e by co co ns pi rat or s be fo re a de fen da nt joi ns th e co n s p i r a c y a r e ad m is si bl e as lo ng as th e co ns pi racy o r

sc he m e ex is te d at th e ti m e th e st at em en ts were m ad e.” Uni te d St at es v. Lero ux , 73 8

F.2 d 94 3, 94 9- 50 (8 th Ci r. 19 84 ). Trem us i n i d o e s n o t cl ai m Gray m ad e th e

st at em en ts be fo re t he co ns pi racy beg an

.

-1 1-We a l s o reject Trem us in i’s co nt en ti on th at Gray ’s s ta te m en ts were no t m ad e in fu rth eran ce of th e co ns pi racy. Effo rts to co nc eal a co ns pi racy act ua ll y fu rth er th at

co ns pi racy, as do “[s ]ta te m en ts of reas ss ur an ce whi ch ‘serv e to m ai nt ai n tru st an d

co he si ve ne ss

. . . , or in fo rm each ot he r of th e cu rren t st at u s o f t h e c o n sp ira cy .’ ”

Uni te d Stat es v. Lewis, 75 9 F.2d 13 16

, 13 48 (8 th Ci r. 19 85 ) (q uo ti ng Uni te d Stat es

v. Am m ar, 71 4 F.2 d 23 8, 25 2 (3 d Ci r. 19 83 )); se e Uni te d St at es v. Man fre, 36 8 F.3 d

83 2, 83 9 (8 th Ci r. 20 04 ). Howev er, stat em en ts th at m erel y “ in fo rm [] th e li st en er of

th e de cl aran t’s cri m in al act iv it ie s [are ] n o t m ad e in fu rth eran ce of th e co ns pi racy.”

Uni te d S ta te s v . Rag la nd , 55 5 F .3d 70 6, 7 13 (8t h C ir. 2 00 9)

.

Co nt rary to Trem

us in i’s as se rti on , G ra

y ’ s sta te m en t to Be ckm an th at Gray ga ve
Trem us in i m on ey to se cu re Trem us in i’s co op erat io n fu r t h ered th e co ns pi racy by (1 ) ex pl ai ni ng Trem

us in i’s ro le to a co co ns pi rat or , an d (2 ) reas su rin g Bec km an th at

Trem us in i wou ld ai d in th e frau d. See Lewis

, 75 9 F.2 d at 13 40

. The di st ric t co ur t di d

no t er r in ad m it ti ng Gray ’s st at em en ts to Beck m an

.

As fo r Gray ’s st at em en ts to Men kh us an d DeCo ll o, th os e st at em en ts arg ua bl y

were m ad e by Trem

us in i’s “ co co ns pi rat or du rin g an d in fu rth eran ce of t he

c o n sp ira cy ” an d are no t he ars ay , Fed . R . Ev id . 8 01 (d )(2 )(E), bu t ev en if ad m i t t i n g 7

th e st at em en ts were erro r, we affi r m b e c a u se Gray was no t pr ejud ic ed by th ei r ad m is si on

. See McC rack en , 11 0 F.3 d at 54 2. The se st at em en ts sh ow e d o n l y th at

Trem us in i acce pt ed a br ib e fro m G r a y i n ex ch an ge fo r ov erl oo ki ng hi s m ai l frau d. Gray ’s st at em en ts to Bec km an , to ge th er wit h th e ot he r ev id en ce, pr ov id ed su ffi ci en t

ev id en ce fo r a reas on ab le jury to fin d, be y on d a reas on ab le do ub t, th e br ib e oc cu rred

,

ev en wit ho ut th e co ns is te nt st at em en ts to Men kh us an d DeC ol lo

.

Trem us in i de cl ares in he r Rep ly Bri ef on ap pe al

, “ bo th [Me nk hu s an d 7 DeCo ll o] ad m it te d to de ta il ed kn owl ed ge of

, co op erat io n in an d pr of it fro m th e

co ns pi racy for y ears .”

-1 2-2. Ju ry Ins truc tio ns

Trem us in i al so cl ai m s t h e di st ric t co ur t erre d by no t gi vi ng th e jury two

pr op os ed in st ru ct io ns on th e cred ib il it y of Gray ’s st at em en ts to Bec km an , Men kh us ,

an d DeCol lo

. See Bel l, 57 3 F.2 d at 10 44 (req ui rin g an “ ap pr op ria te in st ru ct io n on ”

th e cred ib il it y of a co co ns pi rat or ’s st at em en t). I n s t e a d of Trem us in i’s pr op os ed

in st ru ct io ns , th e di st ric t co ur t in st ru ct ed th e jury us in g Eig ht h Ci rcu it Mo de l Cri m in al

Ju ry Ins tru ct io n (M od el Ins tru ct io n) 4.0 4:

You ha ve he ard ev id en ce th at Don na Bec km an an d Mi ch ael Jo ne s ha ve m ad e pl ea ag reem en ts wit h th e Gov ern m en t. The ir te st im on y was

rece iv ed in ev id en ce an d m ay be co ns id ered by y ou

. You m ay gi ve th ei r te st im on y su ch weig ht as y ou th in k it de se rv e s

. Wh e t h er or no t th ei r te st im on y m ay ha ve be en in flu en ced by th e pl ea ag reem en t is fo r y ou to de te rm in e.

The w i t n e s s ’s gu il ty pl ea can no t be co ns id ered by y ou as an y

ev id en ce of th es e de fen da nt s’ gu il t. The wit ne ss ’s gu il ty pl ea can be

co ns id ered by y ou on ly fo r th e pu rp os e of de te rm in in g ho w m uc h, if at al l, t o re ly upo n t he wit ne ss ’s tes ti m on y

.

The di st ric t co ur t al so ga ve a ge ne ral cred ib il it y in st ru ct io n, whi ch in cl ud ed an ad m on it io n to co ns id er th e wit ne ss es ’ m ot iv es

. “ W e rev ie w a di st ric t co ur t’s

fo rm ul at io n of jury in st ru ct io ns fo r an ab us e of di sc ret io n, an d wil l rev ers e on ly if an

erro r in th e in st ru ct io ns was pr ejud ic ia l.” Uni te d St at es v. Yiel di ng , 6 57 F

. 3 d 68 8,

70 8 (8 th Cir . 20 11 ).

Trem us in i fir st cl ai m s th e di st ric t co ur t sh ou ld ha ve gi ve n a m od ifi ed ve rs io n of Mo de l In st ru ct io n 4.0 5A ab ou t Men kh us an d DeCo ll o. Mo de l In st ru ct io n 4.0 5A, 8

as m od ifi ed , st at ed :

Trem us in i d oe s n ot co nt es t t hi s ru li ng wit h re ga rd to Beck m an an d J on es

. 8

-1 3-You ha ve h e a r d te st im on y fro m Don na Bec km an , Ri ch ard

D[e]Col lo , M ic ha el Jo ne s an d Wil li am Men kh us who st at ed th at he or sh e pa rt i c i p a t e d in th e cri m e ch arg ed ag ai ns t th e de fen da nt

. The ir

te st im on y was rece iv ed in ev id en ce an d m ay be co ns id ered by y ou

. You

m ay gi ve th ei r te st im on y su ch weig ht as y ou th in k it de se rv es

. W he th er

or no t hi s or he r te st im on y m ay ha ve be en in flu en ced by hi s or he r de si re to pl eas e th e Gov ern m en t or to st rik e a go od ba rg ai n w it h th e Gov ern m en t ab ou t t he ir o wn s it ua ti on is for y ou to de te rm in e.

As th e di st ric t co ur t ex pl ai ne d, M o de l In st ru ct io n 4.0 5A wou ld ha ve be en in ap p r o pr ia te be cau se it refe rs to a wit ne ss who ha s pa rti ci pa te d in a cri m e an d

Trem us in i at th e in st ru ct io n co nf eren ce di d no t id en ti fy an y ev id en ce tha t Men kh us

an d DeC ol lo pa rti ci pa te d i n t he co ns pi racy. The in st ru ct io n t he di st ric t co ur t g av e 9

in s t e a d

, M od el In st ru ct io n 4.0 4, th ou gh li m it ed to Bec km an an d Jo ne s, al lo wed

Trem us in i to arg ue t h es e wit ne ss es ’ te st im on y was “ in flu en ced by th ei r de si re

to

. . . st rik e a go od ba rg ai n wit h th e go ve rn m en t.” Alt ho ug h Mo de l In st ru ct io n 4.0 4

di d no t refe r to Men kh us an d DeCo ll o, t h e d i s t r ic t co ur t in st ru ct ed th e jury to

co ns id er Men kh us an d D e C o l l o ’s cred ib il it y in th e ge ne ral cred ib il it y in st ru ct io n. The di st ric t c o u r t di d no t ab us e it s di sc ret io n in refu si ng to gi ve Mo de l In st ru ct io n
4.0 5A.

Trem us i n i ne xt co nt en ds th e di st ric t co ur t erre d in no t gi vi ng a m od ifi ed

ve rs io n of Mo de l I n s t r u c t io n 4.0 5B ab ou t Bec km an an d Jo ne s. Mo de l In st ru ct io n
4.0 5B , as m od ifi ed , read :

You ha ve he ard ev id en ce th at Don na Be ck m an an d Mi ch ael Jo ne s ho pe to rece iv e a red uc ed se nt en ce on cri m in al ch arg es pe nd in g ag ai ns t each of th em in ret ur n fo r he r or h i s co op erat io n wit h th e Gov ern m en t in th is c a s e. Don na Bec km an an d Mi ch ael Jo ne s en te red in to
ag reem en ts wit h th e Uni te d St at es Att or ne y ’s Offi ce whi ch pr ov id e th at in ret ur n fo r he r or hi s as si st an ce th e Gov ern m en t wil l reco m m en d a le ss

Bu t s ee s up ra n ot e 7

. 9

-1 4-se ve re se nt en ce whi ch co ul d be le ss th an th e ran ge of pu ni sh m en t fo r th e

cri m es wit h whi ch sh e a n d h e are ch arg ed

. If th e pr os ecu to r ha nd li ng th es e wit ne ss es ’ cas es be li ev es she or he pr ov id ed su bs ta nt ia l as si st an ce, th at pr os ecu to r can fil e in th e co ur t in whi ch th e ch arg es ar e pe nd in g ag ai ns t each wit ne ss a m ot io n to red uc e he r or hi s po te nt i a l se nt en ce. You m ay gi ve th e te st im on y of th es e wit ne ss es su ch weig ht as y ou th in k it de se rv es

. W he th er or no t te st im on y of a wit ne ss m ay ha ve be en in flu en ced by he r or hi s ho pe of rece iv in g a red uc ed se nt en ce is fo r y ou to de ci de

.

The di st ric t co ur t pr op erl y de cl in ed to gi v e M o d el In st ru ct io n 4.0 5B be cau se th ere

was no ev id en ce th e go ve rn m en t pr o mise d th e wit ne ss es le ni en cy in ex ch an ge fo r

co op erat in g i n t he cas e ag ai ns t Trem us in i. Mo de l In st ru ct io n 4 .04 was ap pr op ria te
be cau se it in vo lv es th e cred ib il it y of wit ne ss es who ha ve pl e a a g r e e men ts
, whi ch

Bec km an an d Jo ne s ha ve

. The di st ric t co ur t di d no t ab us e it s di sc ret io n in in st ru ct in g th e jury.

3. Tre m us in i’s Mot io ns for Acqui tta l

“ Afte r th e go ve rn m en t cl os es it s ev id en ce or aft er th e cl os e of al l th e ev id en ce, th e co ur t on th e de fen da nt ’s m ot io n m us t en te r a jud gm en t of acq ui tt al of an y of fen se fo r whi ch th e ev id en ce is in su ffi ci en t to su st ai n a co nv ic ti on .” Fed

. R. Cri m

. P. 29 (a).

In rev ie win g th e di st ric t co ur t’s de ni al of a m ot io n fo r jud gm en t of acq ui tt al

, “ ‘[w] e vi ew th e ev id en ce in th e li gh t m os t fav or ab le to th e ve rd ic t, gi vi ng it t h e b en efi t of

al l reas on ab le in fere nc es ,’ an d we wil l rev ers e on ly if no reas on ab le jury co ul d fin d

th e d efen da nt gu il ty bey on d a reas on ab le do ub t.” Uni te d St at es v. Fu ll er, 5 57 F.3d

85 9, 86 3 (8t h Cir. 20 09 ) (q uo ti ng Uni te d Stat es v. Mo nn ie r, 41 2 F.3 d 85 9, 86 1 (8t h

Ci r. 20 05 )).

To sh ow Trem

us in i vi ol at ed 18 U.S.C. § 20 1( c)(1 )(B)

, th e go ve rn m en t m us t

pr ov e sh e acce pt ed th e pa y m en ts fr o m G r a y in ex ch an ge fo r co m m it ti ng —o r ab st ai ni ng fro m

—an of fic ia l act

. See Uni te d St at es v. Su n- Diam on d Gro wers of Cal

.,

-1 5-52 6 U.S. 39 8, 41 4 (1 99 9)

. The re is am pl e ev id en ce Trem

us in i (1 ) di d no t ve rif

y SG

Pri nt ’s po st al fo rm s eve n th ou gh sh e kn ew sh e was req ui red to do so , (2 ) li ed ab ou t

ve rif y in g SG Pri nt ’s po st al fo rm s, (3 ) warn ed Gray th e go ve rn m en t was in ve st ig at in g th e st am p sc he m e, (4 ) de ni ed rece iv in g th e se co nd $1 0,0 00 pa y m en t fro m Gray un ti l

sh e was co nf

ro nt ed wit h a co py of

th e ch eck , and (5) acce pt ed m on ey for no t do in g he r of fic ia l du ti es

. The se act io ns al lo w a reas on ab le jury to in fer Trem us in i ap pr ov ed

or di rect ed he r em

pl oyees to ap pr ov e SG Pri nt ’s po st al fo rm s bec au se sh e ha d bee n
br ib ed to do so

. The di st ric t co ur t pr op erl y de ni ed Trem us in i’s m ot io ns fo r acq ui tt al

.

II I. CONCLUSI ON

W e aff irm th e d is tri ct co ur t’s jud gm en ts

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-1 6-