FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V E N T H C IR C U IT J ULY 26, 2007 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK

* Honora ble J ohn R. Gibson, United States Circuit J udg e for the Eig hth Circuit, sit ting by desig nation. [PUBLISH]

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

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ N o. 06- 1205 1

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ D. C. Docket N o. 05-00005 -CR- 001-HL -7 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pla intiff-Appellee, ve rs us NICKY TAMPAS, D ef en dant- Appe llant.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ Appeal f rom the United State s District Court fo r the Mi ddl e D istri ct

of G eo rg ia

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (J ul y 26 , 200 7) Be fo re E D MO N D SO N , Ch ie f Judg e, T JO FL A T and G IB SO N , Ci rc uit Jud ge s. * GI BSO N, Circuit Judge:2

N ic ky J. T am pa s a ppe al s hi s c onvi ct ion s f

or c onsp ir ac y

to co m m it em be zz le m en t, 18 U . S. C. § 37 1 inc onne ct ionw ith18 U . S. C. § 66 6, em be zzl em en t, 1 8 U.S.C. § 66 6, an d m is le ad in g c on du ct , 18 U.S.C. § 1 51 2( b) (3 ). T am pa s a lso appe al s hi s se nte nc e of c onc ur re nt t er m s of 60 and 9 7 m onths’ im pr iso nm en t and an or de r to p ay $1, 405, 821. 77 i n r es tit

uti on. W e va cate the portio n of

the se nte nc e or de ri ng an in co rr ec t am ount of r es tit uti on and r em an d f

or resentencing but ot herw ise aff irm Tam pas’ s convictio ns and sentence. Tam pas was pre sident and executiv e director of the YMC A of Va ldost aLow ndes Coun ty , G eorgia, wher e he had a 26-y ear care er. A s president, he ran the day to day ope ratio ns o f the Y MC A , m an ag ed it s f inanc es , and r ep orte d to the bo ardof d ire ct or s. Tam

pa s wo rk edclo se ly w it h fi na nc e d ire ct orTon i Fi ll y aw, w ho w as r es pons ibl e fo r the Y MC A ’ s payro ll an d a cc ount s pay ab le . I n a ddi tio n, T am pa s w as the Y MC A ’ s li ste d r ep re se ntativ e on s ev er al of it s A m er ic anE xpr es s card s. Tam pas hired W . L ee P atrick and his landscapin g com pany to perform m aintenance, repair, and som e construction projects at the Y MCA , and to p erfor m la nd sc ap in g wo rkan d h om e im pr ov em en t p ro

jects at Tam

pa s’s o wn h ou se . Tam pas arranged for Patric k’ s em ploy ees to be paid directly by the YMC A a s co ntr ac tor s, an arr an ge m en t the Y MC A board ne ve r au tho ri ze d. T am

pa s and Filly awissued YMCAchecks to Patrick and his em ploy ees based on handwritten3

sli ps o f pa

pe r Patr ic k su

bm itt ed li sti ng h is e m

plo y ee s’ nam es and d oll ar a m ount s to b e pa id, r athe r than th e de sc ri pti ve inv oic es the Y MC A ty pic al ly use d. U nli ke other bills, Patrick’ s wer e handled solelyby Filly awand not bythe other bo ok ke ep er re sp on si bl e fo r en te rin g e xp en se s i nt o t he YMCA’s co m pu te r syste m . Fi lly awa lso handl ed

bil ls f or the Y MC A A m er ic anE xpr es s a cc ount T am pa s us ed . InD ec em be r 2002 , it

w as dis co ve re d th at

F ill y awha d f

ai le d to r em it payro ll ta xe s th at ha d be enw ith he ld f

ro m Y MC A e m

plo y ee s’ c he ck s to the f

ed er al and state taxing auth orities; inst ead, the funds were kept in the YMCA ’ s general op erat in g a cco un t. Thi s re su lt edin an un pa idpri nc ip al tax li ab il it y of $ 1.4 m ill ion , plu s pe na lti es . F ill y aww as te rm inate d and e ve ntu al ly w as c onvi ct ed

of theft of governm ent property and m ail fra

ud. A fter the unpaid taxes we re discovered, the FB I began an investigatio n into the YMC A’ s book s. A s YMCA officials also began to exam ine and organize the book s, they noticed oth er financial irre gularities. D on Pope, trea surer of the board of dire ctors, took over sig nin g Y MC A c he ck s inF ill y aw ’ s st ea d and b ec am e sus pic iou s of larg e paym ents the YMCAhad issued to Patric k without do cum entation of what w ork he ha d do ne , and l ar ge c harg es on the Y MC A A m er ic anE xpr es s c ar d us ed by T am pa s, w he re P ope w as able to fi nd o nly thr ee m onths’ w orth o f state m en ts f or the account. T he YMC A’ s outs ide auditor also was troubled bythe size of Y MCA paym en ts t o P atri ck

and h is d isc ove ry

that T am pa s ha d e ndor se d on e of

his4

Y MC A pay ch ec ks o ve r to P atri ck . T am pa s be cam e an gr

y w he n qu es tio ne d a

bout the paym en ts. I n th e spr ing of 200 3, T am

pa s a ske d on e of

his sub or din at es , P au l A ram bul a, to pr ep ar e a spr ea dshe et a ttr ibutin g tw o y ears ’ w orth o f Patr ic k’ s j ob rece ipts to various YMCAproje cts. S eeing that the value of the rece ipts far ex ceed edth e v al ue of t he workPat ric k a nd hi s emplo y ees ha d d on e atth e YMCA, Ar am bula reported the m atter to the Y MCAboard and its attorney and resigned from his pos ition . The board voted to request that Tam pas resign, and he acc eded to tha t r eque st. InF eb ru ar

y 200 5, agr an d j ur

y ind ic te d T am

pa s and P atri ck

on o ne c ount

of co nspi ra cy

to co m m it em be zz le m en t f

ro m an or ganiz at ionr ec ei vin g f ed er al f unds in v iol at ionof

18 U . S. C. § 37 1 inc onne ct ionw ith§ 66 6, and o ne c ount of em be zz le m en t f

ro m an or ganiz at ionr ec ei vin g f ed er al f unds , in vio la tio n of

18 U . S. C. § 66 6. T he ind ic tm en t a lso c harg ed T am pa s w ithan a ddi tio na l c ount of emb ez zl emen tb as ed o n h i s al l eg ed l y m ak i n g p er s o n al ch ar g es o n th e Y M CA ’s A m er ic anE xpr es s c ar ds, in vio la tio n of 18 U . S. C. § 66 6, and a

c ount of m ak ing fa lse state m en ts t o th e FB I, in vio la tio n of 18 U . S. C. § 10 01( a) (2 ). Asup er se din g ind ic tm en t w as f

ile d inJul y

200 5, r es ta tin g th e co unt s a lle ge d inthe f ir st ind ic tm en t and a ddi ng a

c ount a ga ins t e ac h de fe ndant f or m isl ea din g c ondu ct

in vio la tio n of

18 U . S. C. § 15 12( b) (3 ). T he c as e pr oc ee de d to se parate tr ia ls f or Patr ic k and T am

pa s; P atri ck

w as tr ie d f

ir st and c onvi ct ed .5

A t T am pa s’ s tr ia l, on the c onsp ir ac y and f ir st e m be zz le m en t c ount s, the gove rn m en t a lle ge d th at

T am pa s ha d akic kba ck

arr an ge m en t w ithP atri ck in w hic h T am

pa s ha d th e Y MC A pay

m or e than it s sh ar e of

P atri ck ’ s c ost s in ex ch an ge f

or P atri ck pe rf orm ing w ork a t T am

pa s’ s ho m e at

li ttl e or no c harg e to T am pa s. P atri ck ’ s e m

plo y ee s te sti fi ed

that the y of te n r ec ei ve d pay ch ec ks d ir ec tly from the YMC A when their tim e had been spent working for Patr ick’ s other cl ie nts , inc lud ing T am

pa s. Whe n e m

plo y ee s qu es tio ne d hi m

about the sourc e of the ir pay ch ec ks, P atri ck

tol d th em

that he ha d an a cc ount

w iththe Y MC A and d ep o s i t ed fu n d s th er e, b u tth er e w as n o re co rd o f s u ch an arra n g emen t . P at ri ck ’s em plo y ee s a lso te sti fi ed

that the y did w ee kly y ar d w ork a t T am

pa s’ s ho use usi ng Y MC A e qui pm en t and tha t the y pe rf orm ed c ost ly hom e im pr ove m en t pr oj ec ts f

or Tam pa s, i nc lu di ng bu il di ng a $4 7,0 00 ga zeb o a nd a $6 5,0 00 ad di ti on an d re m od el . An FB I agent testified that T am pas told h im

he had paid Patrick in cash and had rece ipts for all this work, but, a lthou gh Tam pas produced the pay check he had endorsed over to Patrick and elicited testim ony from other contractors that he had pa id those c ontra ct or s inc as h, he w as not able to pr oduc e re ce ipt s f or m ost of the w ork P atri ck ’ s c om

pany ha d do ne a t hi s ho m e. T he e vid en ce sho w ed that the Y MC A iss ue d paym en ts t o P atri ck and h is e m

plo y ee s to ta lin g a

ppr oxi m at el y $890 ,000 betwee n April 2000 and Decem ber 2002. T am

pas’ s witnesses testified that P atri ck ’ s landsc ap ing c om pany ha d pe rf orm ed landsc ap ing , c le anup, and6

general re pair w ork on a regular basis at the Y MCA , a s well a s m ore substantial pr oj ec ts l ike bui ldi ng a

c em en t bl oc k sh ed

to hous e pool e qui pm en t and c he m ic al s an d r em ode lin g th e lob by . T he gov er nm en t’ s e xpe rt

e sti m at ed

the va lue of

the bui ldi ng p ro

j ec ts at a ppr oxi m at el y

$11 5, 000. T am

pa s’ s e xpe rt

e sti m at ed

the va lue o f a l l th e wo rkp e r f

o rmeda tth e YM C A a t$ 1 , 0 9 7 , 0 0 0 i f p e r f o rmedb y a com m ercia l contractor (which Patrick w as not). On the second em

bezzlem ent count, the governm ent produced evidence that T am pa s im pr ope rl y use d th e Y MC A ’ s A m er ic anE xpr es s a cc ount s to m ak e personal purchases. F BI analy st Charlotte Lockhart r eviewe d the account charges an d te sti fi ed

that, a ft er

giv ing T am

pa s c re dit f or Y MC A -a

uth or iz ed c harg es , she e s t i ma t e dth a th i s p e r s o n a l c h a r g e s e x c e e d e d$ 5 7 , 0 0 0 , i n c l u d i n g ah o me ne w spa pe r subs cr ipt ionand w ee ke nd p ur ch as es a t gr oc er y sto re s, boo kst or es , clothin g and sho e stores, and restaurants. Tam pas elicited testim ony

from YMC A board m em be rs and e m

plo y ee s th at

buy ing f ood an d su

ppl ie s f or Y MC A f unc tio ns wa s part of his j ob. Further m ore, Tam

pas claim ed that he reim

bursed the YMCA fo r his pe rs ona l c harg es and t old the F BI that the Y MC A ow ed him $17 , 000 fo r ca sh l oans h e ha d m ad e to the or ganiz at ion . H e ha d no r ec or ds, how ev er , to su pp or t t he se cla im s. The governm ent’ s evidence on the m isleading con duct count consisted pr im ar ily of the te sti m ony

of f orm er Y MC A e m

plo y ee P au l A ram

bul a. A ram

bul a7

te sti fi ed that T am pa s a ske d hi m

to cr eate aspr ea dshe et

r ec onc ili ng tw o y ears ’ wo rt h o f P at ri ck ’s “ h an dre ce i p t s ” w i t h v ar i o u s YM CA p ro je ct s . Ta m

p as ’s re que st c am e at

ati m e w he n su spi ci on w as m ount ing about the Y MC A ’ s si za

ble paym en ts t o P atri ck

and h is e m

plo y ee s. A ram

bul a te sti fi ed

that he r ef

use d to m ak e the spr ea dshe et

be ca use he w as dis tur

be d by the larg e dis pari ty

be tw ee n th e value of the work done and Patric k’ s rece ipts, which did not cont ain detailed in fo rm at io n t o e xp la in th e ch arg es . T he j ur y c onvi ct ed

T am pa s of the c onsp ir ac y

c ount , both c ount s of em be zz le m en t, and the m isl ea din g c ondu ct c ount , but

it f ound him not gui lty of m ak ing af

al se state m en t t o th e FB I. T he c ourt se nte nc ed T am pa s to 60 m onths’ im prisonm ent on the cons piracy count and 97 m onth s on each of the three rem aining cou nts, with all ter m s to run concurrently . It also ordered him to pay re sti tut ionto the Y MC A in the a m ount of $1, 405, 821. 77. T his appe al f oll ow ed . T am pa s a sse rt s se ve ra l arg um en ts o n a ppe al . F ir st, he arg ue s th at the ev ide nc e w as ins uf

fi ci en t t o su

ppor t hi s c onvi ct ionon e ac h c ount . S ec ond, he ar gue s th at

his c onvi ct ion s f

or c onsp ir ac y

and the tw o e m

be zz le m en t c ount s m

ust be rever sed because the district court’ s jur y instruction s constructivelyam ended the ind ic tm en t. N ex t, T am pa s c ont en ds tha t the dis tr ic t c ourt pr ej udi ce d hi s r igh t to a f ai r tr ia l by

a dm itt ing e vid en ce about the Y MC A ’ s unpa id t ax es . H e al so co nte nds that hi s c onvi ct ionsho uld be r ev er se d be ca

use both th e pr ose cu tor

and8

th e d is tri ctco ur t m ad e im pr op er co m

m en ts in vi ol at io n o f hi s co ns ti tu ti on al rig ht s. Fi na lly , he c ha lle nge s hi s se nte nc e, arg uin g th at it is unr ea sona

ble be ca use the obstructio n of j ustice enhancem ent and loss determ ination are incorrect, and that the r es tit uti on o rd er

w as im pr ope r. W e ad dr es s e ac h a lle ga tio n of e rr or in tur n. I. S uff iciency of t he e vidence T am pa s c ha lle nge s th e suf

fi ci en cy of the e vid en ce on a ll fo ur

c ount s of co nvi ct ion . A t the c los e of the gov er

nm en t’ s e vid en ce , T am

pa s m ove d f

or acquittal, w hich the dist rict court denied. W e re view de novo the denial of a m oti on f or a cquitta l and the suf

fi ci en cy of the e vid en ce to sus ta in a c onvi ct ion , vie w ing the e vid en ce in the li ght m ost f av or ab le to the gov er

nm en t and draw ing

“ all rea sonable inferences and cre dibil ity choices in favor of the j ury ’ s verdict.” U nit ed S ta te s v. E vans, 344 F . 3d 1 131, 113 4 ( 11th C ir . 200 3) . T he j ur y is fr ee to choose am ong alternative reasonable interpretations of the evidence, U nited States v. A rb an e, 446 F . 3d 1 223, 122 6 n. 1 ( 11th C ir . 200 6) , and the gov er nm en t’ s pr oof ne ed not e xc lud e “ ev er

y r ea sona ble hy pothe sis of

inn oc en ce , ” U nit ed

S ta te s v. Y oung , 906 F . 2d 6 15, 618 ( 11th C ir . 199 0) . W e af fi rm if ar ea sona

ble j ur or c oul d ha ve c onc lud ed

that the e vid en ce e sta

bli she d T am

pa s’ s gu ilt

be y ond a re as ona

ble doub t. S ee U nited States v. H asson, 333 F.3d 1264 , 1270 (11th Cir. 2003).9

A . Co nspi ra cy

c ount T o pr ove that T am

pa s e nga ge d inac onsp ir ac y to em be zz le f unds f ro m the Y MC A , the gov er

nm en t ha d to pr ove : 1) the e xis te nc e of an a gr ee m en t t o a ch ie ve anunl aw fu l ob

j ec tiv e, 2) T am

pa s’ s kn ow ing and v oluntary part ic ipatio n inthe ag re em en t, and 3 ) the c om m iss ionof

an a ct in furthe ranc e of

the a gr ee m en t. 18 U. S. C. § 371 ; United States v. Cure, 804 F.2d 625, 628 (11t h Cir. 1986 ). T am pas ar gue s th at

no r ea sona

ble j ur or c oul d have c onvi ct ed

him of c onsp ir ac y

be ca use th e g ov ern m en t fa il edto pro ve a m eet in g o f th e m in ds be twee n h im an d P at ric k. W e conclude, howe ver, that the governm ent produced sub stantial circum stantial ev ide nc e fr om

w hic h th e j ur

y c oul d in fe r that T am

pa s and P atri ck

a gr ee d to em bezzle f unds from

the YMC A. T am

pas arranged for the YMC A to pay Patrick’ s em

ploy ees directly

without seeking b oard approval, and he issued such paym ents with no m ore docum entation of work from Patric k than a handwritten she et of pa pe r lis tin g w orke rs ’ nam es and am ount s due. A t the sam e tim e, Patr ic k’ s c om

pany pe rf orm ed m aj or hom e im pr ove m en t w ork a t T am

pa s’ s ho use wi t h s ca n tre co rd o f p aym en tfr o m Ta m p as . Ta m p as p o i n t s o u tth at Pa t ri ck ’s em plo y ee s te sti fi ed

that the y ne ve r de al t w ithT am

pa s, but thi s is larg el y

be sid e the poi nt whe re the kic kba ck sc he m e w as be tw ee n P atri ck and T am pa s, not T am pa s and P atri ck ’ s e m

plo y ee s. T am

pa s a lso e m

pha siz es P atri ck ’ s e m

plo y ee s’ testim ony that Patrick insisted they keep acc urate client re cords, but the j ury wa s10

free to draw the inference that any such adm oniti on was not followed with re spect to th e h an dwr it te n t im e sl ip s Pa tri cksu bm it te d t o Tam pa s an d t he YMCA. Substantial circum stantial evidence supp orts Tam pas’ s conspi racy

conviction . See U nit ed S ta te s v. G upt a, 463 F . 3d 1 182, 119 4 ( 11th C ir . 200 6) ( co nspi ra cy c anbe proven bycircum stantial evidence), c ert. denied, 127 S. Ct. 2446 (2007). B. F ir st e m

be zz le m en t c ount N ex t, T am

pa s c ha lle nge s th e suf

fi ci en cy of the e vid en ce on the em be zzl em en t co nv ic ti on ba se d o n h is ki ckba ckarra ng em en t wi th Pat ric k. To convict Tam

pas of em bezzlem ent, the governm ent had to prov e: 1) T am pas co nve rt ed pr ope rty f ro m the Y MC A , 2) that pr ope rty w as va lue d a t $5 , 000 or m or e, an d 3 ) th e YMCA re cei ve d i n e xc es s o f $1 0,0 00 each y ear i n fe de ral fun ds . 18 U . S. C. § 66 6. I n c ha lle ngi ng the f ir st e m be zz le m en t c onvi ct ion , T am pa s po int s out that P atri ck ’ s e m

plo y ee s f re que ntl y w or ke d onthe Y MC A gr ound s, im ply ing that P atri ck ’ s bi lls w er e le git im at e, not pa dde d, and thus no r ea sona ble j ur or c oul d conclude that Tam

pas converted YMCAfunds bypay ing th ose bills . The j ury wa s n o tre qu i re dt o ac ce p tTa m p as ’s th eo ry, h o we v er , wh er e t h e g o v ern m en t ’s subs tanti al e vid en ce of

gui lt show ed

that the paym en ts i ssu ed to Patr ic k and h is worker s far exceeded the value of the w ork they did at the YMCA , T am

pas arranged for Patric k’ s em ploy ees to rec eive paym ent directly from the YMC A wi t h o u tb o ar dap p ro v al , a n dTa m p as an dFi l l yaw a l wa ys h an d l ed Pa t ri ck ’s11

tim es he et s, w hic h de viate d f ro m the standard

pr oc ed ur e fo r pr oc es sin g bi lls a t the Y M C A . M e a n w h i l e , P a t r i c kan dh i s e mp l o ye e s p e r f o rme de x t e n s i v e h o me im pr ove m en t se rv ic es a t T am pa s’ s ho m e, and T am

pa s ha d no r ec or d of

paym en t fo r m ost of tho se se rv ic es . T his is suf fi ci en t t o a llo war ea sona ble j ur or to conclude that Tam

pas em bezzled Y MCAfunds bypay ing padd ed bills Patrick su bm it te d t o t he YMCA. C. S ec ond em

be zz le m en t c ount In challenging th e em

bezzlem ent convictio n that was based on his personal ch ar ge s onthe Y MC A ’ s A m er ic anE xpr es s c ar d, T am pa s arg ue s th at

the governm ent failed to prove that the charges w ere im proper, the governm ent failed to p ro ve that he w as the ind ivi dua l w ho m ad e the a lle ge dly im pr ope r ch ar ge s, and the sum m ar y c hart s pu t t oge the r by

F BI A na ly st L oc khart

c an not sup port hi s co nvi ct ionbe ca

use the y ne ve r shou ld h av e be ena dm itt ed und er F ed . R. E vid . 1006 . W e re

j ec t T am pa s’ s arg um en t tha t the gov er nm en t pr oduc ed

ins uf fi ci en t ev ide nc e that he c onve rt ed the r equis ite a m ount

of f unds . T am

pa s arg ue s th at

his charges w ere proper under the bona fide salary exception of 18 U.S .C. § 666(c), wher e Y MCAboard m em bers and em

ploy ees testified that T am pas was e xpected to u se the c ar d f

or tr av el e xpe nse s and t o purc ha se thi ngs lik e fo od f or larg e- sc al e Y MC A e ve nts and o rd inary bus ine ss m ee tin gs. H ow ev er , the te sti m ony of the se em plo y ee s and b oard

m em be rs doe s no t sh owthat the c harg e ac co unt w as part of12

Tam pas’ s salary

under 18 U. S. C. § 666 (c); sa lary is a budgetary

m atter f or official vot e of the board , and T am

pa s pr oduc ed

no e vid en ce that the board vot ed to giv e him aY MC A A m er ic anE xpr es s a cc ount to use f or pe rs ona l e xpe nse s a s part of hi s co m pe ns at io n p ack ag e. Tam pas also argues that no reasonable juror c ouldfind his charges im proper wher e the char ges had been classified under various categories of the YMC A budg et , and the Y MC A ’ s audi tor te sti fi ed that the e xpe ndi tur es w er e w ith in budg etary

lim its. T hat the expenditu res w ere within the bud get m eans little, be ca use e ve n ov er -b udge t e xpe ndi tur es w oul d no t have c onst itu te d e m be zz le m en t as long as they

we re f or YM CA busin ess rather than T am pas’ s personal use. By t h e s a me t o k e n , u n au t h o r i z e dp e r s o n a l e x p e n d i tu r e s d o n o tb e c o me pr ope r j ust be cau se th ey

are s us cep ti bl e o f cl as si fic at io n wi th in bu dg et ary li m it s. A re as ona ble j ur or c oul d have c onc lud ed

that T am pa s’ s po sit ionof

c ontro l ov er

the Y MC A ’ s f

inanc es a llo w ed

him to dis gui se pe rs ona l c harg es a s bu sin es s expe ndi tur es w ith in the Y MC A bud ge t so that hi s us e of the c re dit

c ar d w oul d no t rai se an y ala rm s. N ex t, T am

pa s arg ue s th at

the gov er

nm en t f ai le d to pr ove he w as the pe rs on wh o m ad e t h e a l l eg ed l y i m p ro p erch ar g es , c i t i n g a Y M CA b o ar dm emb er ’s testim ony that m ultip le people used each YM CA card, Lockhart’ s testim ony that som e of the c harg ing a ct ivi ty

on the c ar d w as c onsi ste nt w ithuse by m or e than on e13

person, and evidence that no one reviewe d the charge slips to verify that Tam pas sig ne d th em . W e co nc lud e that the gov er nm en t pr oduc ed

suf fi ci en t e vid en ce to allow a reasonable j uror to conclude that Tam pas was r espons ible for the im proper charges, wher e w itnesses testified that Tam pas used the card, the state m ents wer e ad dr es se d to him , and i n an F BI int er vie whe a dm itt ed

that he use d th e card

to m ak e $5, 000 to $ 6, 000 in p er sona l purc ha se s. T he e vid en ce is suf fi ci en t t o s up p o rt Ta m

p as ’s s ec o n dembe zz l emen tco n v i ct i o n wi t h o u tre g ar dt o Lo ck h ar t ’s summ ary charts of the im

proper charges, and we rej ect T am pas’ s contentio n that he w as im

pr ope rl y c onvi ct ed

in a “ tr ia l by

c hart s, ” se e U nit ed

S ta te s v. Richardson, 233 F.3d 1285, 1293 (11th Cir. 2000). D . Mi sle ad ing c ondu ct

c ount T am pa s a lso c ha lle nge s th e suf fi ci en cy of the e vid en ce on h is c onvi ct ionf or m isl ea din g c ondu ct . T o pr ove that T am pa s e nga ge d inm isl ea din g c ondu ct , the gove rn m en t ha d to sho w : 1) T am pa s kn ow ing ly

and w ill fu lly

e nga ge d in m isl ea din g c ondu ct

tow ar d anothe r pe rs on, 2) w iththe int en t t o hi nde r, de lay , or pr ev en t the c om

m uni catio n of

inf orm at ionto a fe de ra l l awe nf or ce m en t of

fi ce r, 3) ab ou t t he co m

m is si on or t he po ss ib le co m m is si on of a fed eral cri m e. 18 U.S.C. § 1512 (b ); U nit ed

S ta te s v. V ea l, 153 F . 3d 1 233, 125 3 ( 11th C ir . 199 8) , c er t. de nie d, 526 U . S. 114 7 ( 1999 ). T his c harg e w as ba se d onT am pa s’ s a ct ion s ina ski ng A ram bul a to m ak e a spr ea dshe et a ttr ibu tin g tw o y ears ’ w orth o f Patr ic k’ s hand14

rece ipts to j obs Patrick’ s com pany perform ed at the Y MCA . See Ve al, 153 F.3d at 1247 (m isleading con duct statute encom passes “ a w ide range of conduct that th wart s ju st ic e,” i nc lu di ng “ us [in g] un wit ti ng th ird pa rti es ” to co nc eal th e trut h) . Tam pas contends that the evidence shows onlythat he asked for a spre adsheet or ganiz ing le git im at e fi nanc ia l do cum en ts, and n o r ea sona ble j ur or c oul d c onc lud e his c ondu ct

w as m isl ea din g be ca

use F ill y awha d le ft

the Y MC A ’ s bo oks in dis ar ray and e ve ry one , inc lud ing T am pa s, w as sor

tin g th ro ugh vari ous re ce ipt s in anor ganiz at ion -w ide e ff

ort t o stra igh te n ou t the f inanc ia l r ec or ds. T he gove rn m en t pr oduc ed

suf fi ci en t e vid en ce , how ev er , f ro m w hic h ar ea sona

ble j ur or co uld c onc lud e that T am

pa s’ s su pe rf ic ia lly be nig n r eque st w as r ea lly an e ff ort t o m islead Aram

bula into cre ating a record that w ouldhide the schem e T am pas had un de rta ke n wi th Pat ric k. A re as ona ble j ur or c oul d c onc lud e that the r ec ei pts T am pa s te nde re d to A ram

bul a w er e not

le git im at e busi ne ss r ec or ds, but fr au du l en t , p ad d ed b i l l s , i n l i g h to f t h e g o v ern m en t ’s ev i d en ce th at Pa t ri ck ’s em plo y ee s f re que ntl y r ec ei ve d pay ch ec ks i ssu ed by the Y MC A f

or ti m e the y spe nt at oth er c lie nts ’ sit es . I t i s a lso r ea sona ble to inf er that T am pa s’ s go al w as to cr eate ar ec or d j ust if

y ing the Y MC A ’ s in fl at ed paym en ts t o P atri ck , w hic h th e YMC A tr easurer

and auditor bo th had begu n to qu estion. In light of this evidence an d A ram bul a’ s te sti m ony

on t he “ gr eat di spari ty ” be tw ee n th e va gue r ec ei pts and15

the value of the j obs Tam pas asked him

to reconcile, the j ury

wa s free to rej ect Tam pa s’s i nn oc en t ex pl an at io n fo r hi s co nd uc t. Tam pas also challenges the go vernm ent’ s proof on the m isleading con duct count as vary ing from

the allegations set forth in th e indictm ent, which alleged that he a ske d A ram

bul a to c re at e “ ba ck da te d” r ec or ds. I t i s tr ue that A ram

bul a did not te sti fy that T am pa s a ske d hi m

spe ci fi ca lly

to “ ba ck da te ” the r ec or ds, but this do es not giv e rise to re versible error. T he governm ent proved the statut ory el em en ts o f m isl ea din g c ondu ct , the of fe nse a lle ge d inthe ind ic tm en t, and A ram bul a’ s te sti m ony

doe s no t so m at er ia lly

div er ge f ro m the a lle ga tio ns i n th e ind ic tm en t tha t T am

pa s ha s su ff

er ed sub stanti al pr ej udi ce . S ee U nit ed S ta te s v. W ei ssm an , 899 F . 2d 1 111, 111 4 ( 11th C ir . 199 0) ( vari an ce be tw ee n in dic tm en t an d e vid en ce is re ve rs ibl e er ro r onl y if f ac ts p ro ve d di ve rg e m at er ia lly f ro m tho se alleged and the defendant suffers substantial prejudice). Th u s , we co n cl u d e t h at th e e v i d en ce i s s u ff i ci en tt o s up p o rt Ta m

p as ’s co nvi ct ion s ona ll co unt s.

II. C onstruc tive am endm ent of the indict m ent Tam pa s ar gu es th athi s co nv ic ti on s o n t he co ns pi racy andth e two em bezzlem ent counts m

ust be reversed because the district court’ s jur y ins tr uc tio ns c onstru ct ive ly

a m en de d th e ind ic tm en t. I f he is co rr ec t, thi s is re ve rs ibl e er

ro r pe r se be ca

use it vio la te s hi s F if

th A m en dm en t r igh t t o be tr ie d on16

the c harg es pr es en te d by

the gr an d j ur

y . U nit ed S ta te s v. W ei ssm an , 899 F . 2d 1111 , 1114 (11th Cir. 1990). T am pas poin ts out th at the indictm ent alleged that the object of his and Patrick’ s conspi racy wa s to em

bezzle $864,000 in YMCA funds an d th at

he e m be zz le d a ppr oxi m at el y

$50 , 000 in Y MC A f

unds by usi ng the YMC A A m erican Express car d to m ake personal purchases. The district court ins tr uc te d th e j ur

y that the gov er

nm en t ha d to pr ove that T am pa s c onve rt ed

a t l ea st $5, 000 on e ac h c ount , a s r equir ed by the e m be zz le m en t st at

ute , 18 U . S. C. § 66 6; the ins tr uc tio ns d id n ot r equir e the j ur y to fi nd tha t the gov er

nm en t ha d pr ove d th e m uc h hi ghe r dol lar am ount s a lle ge d inthe ind ic tm en t. T he dif fe re nc es T am

pa s id en tif

ie s be tw ee n th e j ur

y ins tr uc tio ns and the in di ct m en t d o n ot sh ow t ha t t he in di ct m en t was co ns tru ct iv el y am en de d. A constructive am endm ent occurs when the e ssential elem ents of the offense as al le ge d inthe ind ic tm en t are a lte re d to br oa de n th e pot en tia l ba se s f or c onvi ct ion be y ond w ha t the ind ic tm en t c ont ai ns. U nit ed S ta te s v. N ar og, 372 F . 3d 1 243, 12 47 (11 th Cir . 20 04 ); Un it edSta te s v . Kell er, 9 16 F.2d 62 8, 6 34 (11 th Cir . 19 90 ). Inthi s c as e, the ind ic tm en t and the j ur y ins tr uc tio ns are w hol ly

c om pa tib le . C ount I of the sup er se din g in dic tm en t a lle ge d th at T am pa s and P atri ck

c onsp ir ed

to em be zz le “pr ope rty

havin g ava lue in ex ce ss o f $5, 000, ” Co unt I I al le ge d th at

the tw o de fe ndants e m

be zz le d “pr ope rty

havin g ava lue in ex ce ss o f $5, 000, ” an d Co unt I II a lle ge d th at

T am pa s e m be zz le d “pr ope rty

havin g ava lue in ex ce ss o f17

$5 ,00 0.” Thi s i s p reci se ly wha t t he co ur t’s i ns tru ct io ns req ui redth e jury to fi nd . While the factual allegations of the indictm ent elaborate on the statutory charges by alleging that th e obje ct of the conspiracy wa s to em

bezzle $864,000 and th at Tam pas em bezzled approxim ately

$50,000 th rough hi s use of the Am erican E xpr es s c ar d, the c ourt w as not r equir ed to ins tr uc t the j ur

y that i t ha d to f

ind the se am ount s to c onvi ct . B y

a lle gin g th at

T am pa s c onsp ir ed

to em be zz le and d id em be zz le $86 4, 000 w ithP atri ck and e m be zz le d a ppr oxi m at el y

$50 , 000 on h is ow n, the gr an d j ur

y ne ce ssari ly

a lle ge d th at

T am pa s’ s c ri m es inv olv ed

a t l ea st $5, 000 on e ac h c ount , w hic h is w ha t the dis tr ic t c ourt r equir ed the tr ia l j ur

y to fi nd. T hus, the re w as no c onstru ct ive a m en dm en t of the ind ic tm en t. III. Ad m issio n of t ax evidence T am pa s arg ue s th at

the dis tr ic t c ourt pr ej udi ce d hi s r igh t t o af ai r tr ia l by ad m it ti ng ev id en ce ab ou t t he YMCA’s u np ai d p ayro ll tax es ov er h is ob jecti on . H e poi nts out

that the ind ic tm en t di d no t c harg e him w ithany ta x- re la te d c ri m es , an d he c hara ct er iz es the ta x- re la te d e vid en ce a s othe r cr im es e vid en ce und er F ed . R. E vid . 404 (b ), a dm iss ibl e onl y if the gov er

nm en t ha s su ff

ic ie nt p ro of

that the defendant com

m itted the act and can show that the probative value of the evidence is n ot s ubst an tia lly

outw ei ghe d by

it s un due pr ej udi ce . S ee U nit ed S ta te s v. Miller, 959 F.2d 1535 , 1538 (11th Cir. 1992) (en banc).18

W e re view the adm issio n of evidence for a buse of discretion. See United St at es v. Range , 94 F . 3d 6 14, 620 ( 11th C ir . 199 6) . W e cannot c onc lud e that the dis tr ic t c ourt a

buse d it s di sc re tio n inthi s c as e by a dm itt ing e vid en ce of

the Y MC A ’ s unpa id p ay

ro ll ta xe s. F ir st, the gov er nm en t di d no t of

fe r the e vid en ce to sugg est that Tam

pas was r espons ible for tax-re lated offenses; rather , the e vidence w as of fe re d to e xpl ai n ho wsur

plu s c as h w as a va ila

ble to fund T am

pa s’ s and Patrick’ s kickback schem e, which w ent undetected by auditors and bythe YMC A board f or y ears w hil e the inf

la te d op er at ing a cc ount

ba lanc e fo ste re d th e im pression th at the Y MCA ’ s finances w ere strong. Moreover, the evidence re as ona bly sup ports an in fe re nc e that T am pa s kn ewabout

F ill y aw ’ s f

ai lur e to rem it the taxes and had access to the excess funds; Tam pas and Filly awm et se ve ra l t im es aday , T am

pa s m an ag ed

and w as ve ry

kno w le dge ab le about

the Y MC A ’ s f

inanc es , and h e show ed

li ttl e shoc k w he n th e au dit or inf orm ed him of the unp ai d ta xe s. T he pr ej udi ce T am pa s c la im s to have suf

fe re d do es not outw ei gh the pr oba tiv e va lue of thi s e vid en ce , and the dis tr ic t c ourt di d no t e rr in adm itt ing it . IV. Im proper com m ents Tam pas also seeks reversal on the basis of two instances of im proper co m m en ts d ur ing his tr ia l, one by

the pr ose cu tor

and o ne by

the dis tr ic t c ourt. T he first instance arose when the gov ernm ent questio ned one of Patrick’ s form er19

em plo y ee s a bout P atri ck ’ s e xpl an at ionf

or w hy he r pay ch ec ks w er e iss ue d by the Y MC A w he n sh e ha d w orke d f or oth er c lie nts . T am

pa s ob j ec te d to the te sti m ony as hearsay , and the go vernm ent responded th at the statem ent shou ld be adm itted un de r th e co -co ns pi rat orex cep ti on to th e h ears ay rul e, Fed . R. Evi d. 8 01 (d )(2 )(E). Inthe j ur y ’ s pr es en ce , the pr ose cu tor f urthe r ar gue d th at

“ the Co urt m ak es the prelim inary

ruling at som e point du ring the trial whether a conspiracy

has been es ta bli she d, and . . . . I sub m it that w e have e sta bli she d th e el em en ts o f [the conspiracy

count] sufficient for this witness to talk about th is statem ent.” The j ury the n w as dis m iss ed

f or lun ch , and T am

pa s arg ue d th at

the c ourt sh oul d no t a llo w t h e s t a t e me n tb e c au s e , i n l i g h to f th e p r o s e c u t o r ’s r e mark s , th e j u ry w o u l da s s u me that the court had found him guiltyof the conspiracy

count. T he court overruled Tam pa s’s o bjec ti on an d g av e th e jury a cura ti ve in st ru ct io n. W e re view deter

m ination s of prosecutorial m iscondu ct de novo, United St at es v. N or ie ga , 117 F . 3d 1 206, 121 8 ( 11th C ir . 199 7) , r ev er sin g on ly if the de fe ndant’ s su

bst an tia l r igh ts w er e pr ej udi ce d, U nit ed S ta te s v. H as ne r, 340 F . 3d 1261 , 1275 (11th Cir. 2003). E ven if a prosecutor’ s rem ark is prej udicial, it m ay be harm le ss i f a curativ e ins tr uc tio n is giv en . U nit ed

S ta te s v. Ba ile y , 123 F . 3d 1381 , 140 0 ( 11th C ir . 199 7) . I n th is c as e, the pr ose cu tor ’ s r em ar k do es not

e nti tle T am pa s to ane wtr ia l. T he state m en t w as a ddr es se d to the c ourt, not the j ur y , and w as m ad e in the c ont ex t of an e vid en tiary

obj ec tio n to de sc ri be the c ourt’ s r ole in20

de te rm ini ng whe the r to a dm it he ar say e vid en ce . S ee U nit ed

S ta te s v. O nor i, 535 F. 2d 9 38, 943 -4 4 ( 5thCi r. 197 6) ( fi ndi ng n o r ev er sib le e rr or w he re state m en t a r g u ab l y s u g g e s t i n g c o u rt ’s b e l i e f i n d e f e n d a n t ’s g u i l twa s n o ta d d r e s s e dt o ju ry, was in co nt ex t o f pr oc edur al di sc us si on , and cu rat iv e in st ru ct io n was gi ve n) . Furthe rm or e, any

pr ej udi ce w as r en de re d harm le ss b y the c ur at ive ins tr

uc tio n, w hic h e xpr es sly

state d th at , by

a llo w ing the w itn es s to answ er , the c ourt di d no t

“ expr es s, int im at e, or

in an y w ay sug ge st anythi ng a

bout the gui lt or

inn oc en ce of the defendant,” which was “ a m atter solely for [ the j ury ’ s] determ ination .” Tam pas also argues that his con stitut ional rights we re violated when, after a gove rn m en t ob

j ec tio n to ade fe nse w itn es s’ s te sti m ony , the dis tr ic t c ourt a ske d,

“ Why c an ’ t the de fe ndant t es tif y about that? I sn’ t tha t he ar say ?” A lth oughboth defense counsel and Tam pas him self had inform ed the court ear lier that T am pas planned to testify , c ouns el said that Tam pas’ s plans had chang ed and m oved for a m istri al , c hara ct er iz ing the c ourt’ s qu es tio n a s ac om m en t onT am

pa s’ s f ai lur e to te sti fy in vio la tio n of

his F if th A m en dm en t r igh ts. T he c ourt de nie d th e m oti on an d of fe re d to giv e a curativ e ins tr uc tio n, w hic h T am

pa s de cl ine d. O n a

ppe al , Tam pas reiterates his argum ent that the district court’s question am ount s to an im pe rm iss ibl e co m

m en t onhis f

ai lur e to t es tif

y . S ee G ri ff

in v . Ca lif

or nia , 380 U . S. 609 , 615 ( 1965 ) (Fifth A m endm ent forbids comm ent on defendant’s silence) .21

W e rev ie w th e d en ia l o f a m ot io n fo r a m is tri al forab us e o f di sc ret io n. Se e U nit ed

S ta te s v. E tti nge r, 344 F . 3d 1 149, 116 1 ( 11th C ir . 200 3) . R ev er sa l i s w ar rante d on ly

if the c ourt m ad e pr ej udi ci al c om m en ts tha t ha d ac le ar

e ff ec t on the j ur y and am ount ed

to the de nia l of

af ai r tr ia l. U nit ed

S ta te s v. Mo ra le s, 868 F. 2d 15 62, 1576 (11t h Cir. 1989 ). T he district court’ s questio n to defense counsel did not have that e ff

ec t i n th is c as e. V ie w ing the a lle ge dly im pr ope r co m

m en t i n its trial context, see U nited States v. K nowles, 66 F. 3d 11 46, 1163 (11t h Cir. 1995 ), the brief question to d efense c ouns el in the context of an evidentiary obj ec tio n ha d no c le ar

e ff ec t onthe j ur

y . S ee U nit ed

S ta te s v. H ay

ne s, 573 F . 2d 236, 239 (5th Cir. 1978 ) (“ singl e sim ple statem ent in the context o f an evidentiary ruling,” followed by

cautionary

instruction s, w as not prej udicial). V. Re asonableness of sente nce T he dis tr ic t c ourt se nte nc ed T am pa s to 60 m onths’ im

pr iso nm en t onthe conspiracy

conviction and 97 m onth s’ im prisonm ent on each of the other three co u n t s , wi t h al l t er m s t o ru n co n cu rr en t l y. Acc o rd i n g t o th e d i s t ri ct co u rt ’s ca lc ulatio ns and those of

the P re se nte nc e In ve sti ga tio n R ep ort, T am pa s’ s r an ge w as 97- 121 m onths unde r the S en te nc ing G uid el ine s. T am pa s arg ue s th at

his se nte nc e is unr ea sona

ble be ca use the dis tr ic t c ourt i nc or re ct ly appl ie d th e Guidelines by

im posin g a two-le vel upward adj ustm ent for obstruction o f j ustice22

an d by inc or re ct ly c al cu la tin g th e am ount

of los s f or pur pose s of the a m ount

of los s e nhanc em en t. W e re view a district court’ s factual f indin gs regarding the im

posit ion of a se nte nc ing e nhanc em en t f or obs tr uc tio n of j ust ic e fo r cl ear er

ro r an d it s ap pli catio n of

the f ac tua l f ind ing s to the G uid el ine s de nov o. U nit ed S ta te s v. Massey , 443 F. 3d 81 4, 818 (11th Cir. 2006). Guidelin e § 3C1.1 provides for a two-level sentence enhancem ent wher e (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 closely relate d offense. U. S. S. G. § 3C1.1 (2005). T he P re se nte nc e In ve sti ga tio n R ep ort r ec om m en de d an ob str

uc tio n of j ustice enhancem ent based on Tam pas asking Ar am

bula to create a

spreadsheet re co nc ili ng P atri ck ’ s r ec ei pts w ithj obs he ha d pe rf orm ed a t the Y MC A ; the Report chara cterize d this activit y as attem pting to create a set of bac kdated re co rd s. T he dis tr ic t c ourt a dopt ed thi s r ec om

m en da tio n and i m

pose d th e en hanc em en t. T am

pa s arg ue s th at

the f ac ts are ins uf

fi ci en t t o su

ppor t this enhancem ent, pointing out that th e governm ent never established that he asked A ram bul a to b ac kda te r ec or ds, onl y that he a ske d f

or aspr ea dshe et

or ganiz ing23

financial docum ents that he claim s wer e legitim ate. T he governm ent argues that the sam e evidence that supports Tam pas’ s convictio n on th e m isleading con duct co unt sup ports this e nhanc em en t. W e co nc lud e that the dis tr ic t c ourt di d no t e rr in ap ply ing the obs tr

uc tio n of j ust ic e en hanc em en t. Whil e it is tru e that T am pa s di d no t a sk A ram

bul a to a lte r or destroy any docum ents, and did not u se the word “backdate,” the evidence supp orts an in fe re nc e that hi s go al w as to co nc ea l hi s e m be zz le m en t sc he m e by crea ti ng YMCA rec or ds to m ak e fra ud ul en t ex pe nd it ur es ap pe ar l eg it im at e. Patrick’ s em

ploy ees’ testim ony

stronglysuggest ed that the rece ipts Patrick had subm itt ed to T am pa s w er e pa dde d bi lls , and thus fr au dul en t do cum en ts, not le git im at e busi ne ss r ec or ds. A ram bul a te sti fi ed

that T am pa s a ske d hi m

to

“ re co nc ile ” the se va gue r ec ei pts w ithP atri ck ’ s j obs at the Y MC A , w he re tho se re ce ipt s w en t ba ck

tw o y ea rs and w er e not

a t a ll co m

m en sur at e w iththe va lue of Patr ic k’ s w ork a t the Y MC A . B ac kda tin g m ay not be the m ost

apt d es cr ipt ionf

or th is req ue st , bu t i t ca n b e ch arac te riz edfai rly as “ at te m pt in g t o p ro du ce a fa ls e . . . re co rd , ” § 3C 1. 1, c m

t. n. 4( c) ( 2005 ). T he ti m ing of the r eque st s uppo rt s th is int er pr et at ionof

the e vid en ce , a s th e Y MC A tr ea sur er and o uts ide audi tor

r ec en tly had raised question s about th e Y MCApaym ents to Patrick, and an FBI inv es tig at ionint o th e Y MC A ’ s bo oks w as und er w ay . I n li ght

of the se24

circum stantial facts, the district court correctly im posed th e obstruction of j ustice en hanc em en t. W e nowtur

n to T am pa s’ s arg um en t tha t the dis tr ic t c ourt i nc or re ct ly com puted th e am ount of loss for purposes of the 16 -level enhancem ent it im posed pur suant t o U . S. S. G . § 2B 1. 1( b) (1 )( I) ( 2005 ) (a ct ua l or int en de d lo ss b etw ee n $1 m ill ionand $ 2. 5 m ill ion ). I n a ppl y ing the a m ount

of los s e nhanc em en t, the district court relied on the Presentence Investigatio n Report, which determ ined that Tam pas intendedloss equal to the YMC A’ s $1.4 m illion unpaid p rincipal tax li ab il it y , exp la in in g t ha t t he ob ject o f th e co ns pi racy was to em be zzl e th os e fu nd s. T am pa s ob j ec te d to thi s de te rm inatio n a t hi s se nte nc ing he ar ing , not ing that the ind ic tm en t ha d no t a lle ge d th at e ith er he or P atri ck w as inv olv ed

in or kne wabout the YMC A’ s unpaid taxes, and there wa s no eviden ce im plicating th em

in that m atte r. A cknow le dgi ng the c om ple xit ie s inthe a m ount

of los s c al cu la tio n, the dis tr ic t c ourt st at ed

that i t “ w oul d have im

pose d th is s en te nc e re gard le ss o f the re co m m en da tio ns o f the S en te nc ing G uid el ine s a s th ey r el at e to a

spe ci fi c am ount o f l o s s .” Be ca u s e t h e a m o u n to f l o s s en h an ce m en td i dn o taf fe ct Ta m p as ’s se nte nc e, w e do n ot p as s onthe que sti on o f w he the r the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s c al cu la tio n of the am ount of intended los s, which the gov ernm ent adm its was im precise, wa s er ro r. T he c ourt r ec ogni ze d th at the G uid el ine s are a dvi sor y and s ta te d th at

the s en t en ce co m

p l i ed wi t h th e f

ac t o rs s et fo rt h i n 1 8 U.S .C . § 3 5 5 3 (a ), an dTa m p as ’s25

97 m onth se nte nc e is w ith in the te n- y ear m ax im um se nte nc e pe rm itt ed

by the statute, 18 U. S. C. § 666 (a). U nder these circum stances, where the district court w oul d have im

pose d th e sa m e se nte nc e re gard le ss o f the G uid el ine s’ re co m m en da tio ns o n th e am ount of los s, any e rr or in its los s c al cu la tio n is harm less. S ee U nited States v. W illiam s, 456 F. 3d 13 53, 1360 (11t h Cir. 2006 ), petition for ce rt. dism issed, — S. Ct. —, 2007 W L 1839575 (U .S . June 28, 2007); Uni te d S ta te s v . Pal ey , 44 2 F .3d12 73 , 12 78 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ). VI. Re stitut ion order Fi na lly , w e re vie wthe dis tr ic t c ourt’ s f ac tua l f ind ing a s to the spe ci fi c am ount of r es tit uti on f or c le ar e rr or . U nit ed

S ta te s v. F utr el l, 209 F . 3d 1 286, 128 9 (1 1thCi r. 200 0) . A t se nte nc ing , the dis tr ic t c ourt or de re d T am pa s to pay

the YMC A r estitutio n of $1,405,821.77, the am ount of unpaid payroll taxes. T am pas ar gue s, and the gov er

nm en t c onc ed es , that the dis tr ic t c ourt c le ar ly e rr ed in im posin g this restitu tion o rder. T he governm ent never sought to prove that T am pa s’ s e m be zz le m en t sc he m e ca

use d th e Y MC A ’ s f

ai lur e to p ay

it s payro ll ta xe s; i t on ly

sug ge ste d th at

the ta x w ith hol din gs m ay have pr ovi de d surp lus c as h to fund th e schem e. See 18 U. S. C. § 366 3A(a ) (a utho rizing restitution for losses dir ec tly and p ro xim at el y

r es ult ing f

ro m of fe nse of c onvi ct ion ). T hus, w e va cate the restitution order.26

T he part ie s di sa gr ee on whe the r w e shou ld r em an d th e ca se f or re se nte nc ing . A t se nte nc ing , the Y MC A ’ s vi ct im -l oss state m en t f oc use d onthe unpaidtaxes, so, in form

ulating the restitution order, the court did no t consider other losses th e Y MCAsuffere d. T he governm ent seeks a rem and so that it can pr ove that the Y MC A is due r es tit uti on f or tho se los se s, inc lud ing the paym en ts im pr ope rl y iss ue d to P atri ck

and h is e m

plo y ee s. T am

pa s a sks us t o va cate the re sti tut ionor de r w ith out

r em an din g f

or r es en te nc ing , arg uin g th at ar em an d unf ai rl y w oul d gi ve the gov er

nm en t tw o bi te s a t the appl e, but he c ite s no au tho ri ty f or thi s pr opos iti on. T hus, w e re m an d f or r es en te nc ing on the r es tit uti on iss ue . T he part ie s a lso dis ag re e ab out w he the r T am

pa s sh oul d r ec ei ve c re dit ag ai nst any r es tit uti on o rd er

f or the va lue P atri ck

and h is e m

plo y ee s c onf

er re d on the Y MC A , but

w e le av e thi s is sue to the dis tr ic t c ourt a t r es en te nc ing . In sum , w e AFFIRM Tam pa s’s co nv ic ti on s an d s en te nc e o f im pr is on m en t. W e VA CA TE the r es tit

uti on o rd er

and REMAND f

or r es en te nc ing on r es tit

uti on.