[DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 2- 11 30 5 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 2 :1 1- cr-0 00 02 -WCO-SSC-1

UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us CHARLES TOMLIN, a.k.a . Ric k To m li n, Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e North ernDis tri ctof Ge or gi a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Dece m be r 12 , 20 12 ) Befo re CARNES, BAR KETT, an d P RYOR, Ci rcu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM: Ch arl es Tom li n app eal s h is co nv ic ti on form ak in g afal se st at em en t i n a Case: 12-11305 Date Filed: 12/12/2012 Page: 1 of 11m at te r wit hi n t he juri sd ic ti on of ade pa rtment o r ag en cy of t he Uni te d S ta te s i n vi ol at io n o f 18 U.S.C. § 1 00 1( a)(2 ). He als o c ha ll en ge s h is 20 -m on th sen te nc e o f im pr is on m en t an d an a wardof $ 43 ,33 1.6 9 i n re st itut io n. He co nt en ds th atth e di st ric t co urt s ho ul d h av e g ran te d h is m ot io n fo r a jud gm en t o f acqui tt al be cau se th e ev id en ce was in su ffi ci en t t o s us ta inhi s co nv ic ti on . He als o c on te nd s tha t the di st ric t co urt i nc orrect ly inc lu de d t he sal ari es of t he EPA age nt s wh o u nd ert oo k a n in ve st ig at io n a s a r es ul t o f hi s fa ls e st at em en t wh encal cu la ti ng th e lo ss am ou ntfor
se nt en ci ng pu rp os es as we ll as t he res ti tu ti on am ou nt . I. On Se pt em

be r 1, 2 01 0, Ch arl es Tom li n b eg anren ti ng pro pe rty in Gain es vi ll e, Geo rg iafro m James Cap e. Tom li n u se d t hi s p ro pe rty to run“ Street Dream s,” a n aut om ot iv e rep ai r sh op . Acco rd in g t o C ap e, Tom li n n ev er p ai d re nt
an d c om pl ai ne d t ha t the EPA “ was aft er the pro pe rty,” andth at“ th ere was a lo t o f cl ean up th atne ed edto be do ne to [th e p ro pe rty] .” On Oct ob er 2 8, 2 01 0, To m li n c al le d Amy Vaug hn , an En vi ro nm en ta l Sp eci al is t wi th th e Geo rg iaEnv iro nm en ta l Pr ot ect io n Di vi si on , to askforso il te st in g o n t he pro pe rty to c he ckforso li d was te is su es . Whe n Vau gh n v is it ed StreetDream s o n No ve m be r 2, 2 01 0, To m li n t ol d h er tha t thr ee p eo pl e fro m th e EPA—Ch ris W al ke r, Ro be rt De an , andFran k B ak er—ha d c om e to th e p ro pe rty 2 Case: 12-11305 Date Filed: 12/12/2012 Page: 2 of 11an d t ol d h im th atth ey were g oi ng to fin e h im

ov er $ 80 ,00 0. Vau gh n t he n co nt act edth e EPA to pa ss on th e in fo rm at io n s he rece iv edfro m Tom li n. Sh e al so fo un d tha t the re was a pe rs on na m edFran k B ak er wo rk in g fo r th e EPA an d
co nt act edhi m , bu t Ba ke r di d n otreco gn iz edTom li n’s n am e, ad dr es s, o r cas e. Bak er, i n turn, p as se d t he in fo rm at io n h e rec ei ve d fr om Vaug hn on to hi s supe rv is or s an d t o t he EPA Offic e o f th e In sp ect orGene ral
. The EPA th enass ig ne d S pe ci al Agen t Ni ch ol as Evan s t o i nv es ti ga te Tom li n’s cl ai m s. Ev an s was co nc ern edth ateit he r so m eo ne was p ret en di ng to be
anEPA em

pl oyee orth atanactua l EPA em pl oyee was a ct in g c orrupt ly. On Nov em be r 9, 2 01 0, Ev an s an d a no th er ag en t wen t t o S tre etDream s t o t al k wi th Tom li n. To m li n t ol d t he m th atab ou t fo urweek s ea rli er an op enwell be hi nd StreetDream s h adov erfl owe d, caus in g p eo pl e fro m sev eral di ffer en t ag en ci es to vi si t the pro pe rty. T om li n s ai d t ha t two o f th es e p eo pl e—wh om he id en ti fie d a s

“ Ro be rt” an d “ Tracy”—cl ai m edto be ag en ts with the EPA. Tom li n t ol d Ev an s th atRo be rt h adto ldhi m

th athe was i n v io la ti on of e nv iro nm en ta l re gu la ti on s, tha t th e fi ne s co ul d t ot al $2 m il li on , th atTom li n s ho ul d “ pl anon anop ench eck po li cy ,” an d t ha t To m li n n eed edto gi ve Ro be rt h is ba nkacco un t n um be r. Eva ns ’ in ve st ig at io n o f th e al le ge d EPA em pl oyee co nt in ue d u nt il Nov em be r 18 , 20 10 . Duri ng th atti m e, Tom li n t ol d Ev an s tha t Ro be rt v is it ed 3 Case: 12-11305 Date Filed: 12/12/2012 Page: 3 of 11StreetDream s o n a t l eas t two m or e o ccas io ns , to okwate r an d s oi l s am pl es , and of fere d t o s et tl e th e m at te r fo r vario us am ou nt s o f m on ey . Tom li n a ls o t ol d Ev an s th atRo be rt c al le d h im

as o fte n a s twice a da y . Bas edon th es e st at em en ts , Evan s ha d areco rd in g d ev ic e in st al le d o n To m li n’s b us in es s p ho ne to reco rdcal ls fro m Ro be rt, a s wel l as a “ trap a ndtra ce” t o re co rdth e te le ph on e num be rs of i nc om in g cal ls . Evan s al so bro ug htinag en ts fro m W as hi ng to n, D.C., Pen ns y lv an ia , Nort h Caro li na , andTenn es se e to pa rti ci pa te inanun de rco ve r op erat io n t o fi ndRo be rt. 1 Des pi te th os e eff

orts , th e ag en ts ne ve r saw a pe rs on m at ch in g t he de sc rip ti on of Ro be rt a ndals o wer e unabl e to id en ti fy an y cal ls to Tom li n fr om

Ro be rt. As a re su lt , onNov em

be r 18 , 20 10 , th e fo cu s o f th e in ve st ig at io n s hi fte d t o Tom li n. Ev an s que st io ne d To m li n o n Dec em be r 6, 2 01 0, b utTom li n c on ti nu edto
as se rt t ha t the re was anEPA em pl oyee na m edRo be rt i nv es ti ga ti ng hi m . Tom li n was arre st edon Decem

be r 20 , 20 10 an d p le ad edno t g ui lt y to m ak in g afal se st at em en t i n am at te r wit hi n t he juri sd ic ti on of a n a ge nc y of t he Uni te d S ta te s i n vi ol at io n o f 18 U.S.C. § 1 00 1( a)(2 ). At tr ia l, To m li n m ov edfora jud gm en t o f acqui tt al un de r Ru le 29 at t he clo se of t he go ve rn m en t’s ca se . Thatm ot io n was de ni ed , andTom li n d idno t re ne w hi s R ul e 2 9 m ot io n a t the clo se of a ll of t he
This was done in pa

rt bec ause if Robe rt was a corr upt ag ent or e mployee f

rom the 1 Atlanta EPA off

ice, he probably

would not rec ognize a specia l ag ent from a nother jurisdiction. 4 Case: 12-11305 Date Filed: 12/12/2012 Page: 4 of 11ev id en ce. The jury returne d ave rd ic t o f gu il ty, an d t he di st ric t co urt en te red

jud gm en t o n t he ve rd ic t. The pre se nt en ce i nv es ti ga ti on rep ort as si gn edTom li n aba se off en se lev el of si x. Th e PSI a ls o c on cl ud edth atth e EPA ha d s uf fere d ato ta l l os s o f $4 3,3 31 .49 , whi chco ns is te d o f $3 9,4 14 .40 forth e sa la rie s o f th e ag en ts who ha d in ve st ig at edth e al le ge d EPA ag en t h aras si ng Tom li n a nd$3 ,91 7.0 9 fo r op erat in g ex pe ns es in cu rreddu rin g t he in ve st ig at io n s uc h a s g as ol in e, ai rfar e, an d h ot el s. Bec au se Tom li n’s co nduc t re su lt edina lo ss be twee n $ 30 ,00 0 a nd$7 0,0 00 , he
rece iv eda 6- le ve l en ha nc em en t, fo r a t ot al off en se lev el of twelv e. He ha d a cri m in al hi st ory

cat eg ory of I II, res ul ti ng ina gu id el in es ran ge of 1 5 t o 2 1 m on th s im pr is on m en t. The di st ric t co urt i m po se d asen te nc e o f 20 m on th s i m pr is on m en t, a $ 5,0 00 fin e, $4 3,3 31 .69 inres ti tu ti on , an d t hr ee years o f supe rv is edrel eas e. 2 Thi s i s To m li n’s ap pe al
. II. Tom li n fi rs t co nt en ds th atth e d is tri ctco urt erredby den y in g h is Ru le 29
m ot io n fo r a jud gm en t o f acqui tt al . Tom li n d idno t p ro pe rly pres erv e h is ch al le ng e to th e su ffi ci en cy of t he ev id en ce b y

ren ewin g h is Ru le 29 m ot io n a t the
The district cour

t’s restitution calculation is 20 ce nts more than the PSI 2 rec ommendation. Neither party has argued that this was an e rror so we ne ed not addr ess that issue. 5

Case: 12-11305 Date Filed: 12/12/2012 Page: 5 of 11cl os e o f al l o f th e ev id en ce. See Uni te d S ta te s v . Edward s, 5 26 F.3d74 7, 7 56

(1 1t h C ir. 2 00 8) . W e th eref or e rev ie w on ly for a m an ife stm is carr ia ge of ju st ic e, whi chrequi res ev id en ce o n ake y ele m en t o f th e o ffen se to be so ten uo us th ata co nv ic ti on wou ldbe sh oc ki ng . Id. A con vi ct io n u nd er 1 8 U.S.C. § 10 01 (a)( 2) requi res pro of of f iv e el em en ts : (1 ) a s ta te m en t, (2 ) fal si ty, (3 ) m at eri al it y , (4) sp eci fic in te nt , and(5) ag en cy juri sd ic ti on . Uni te d S ta te s v . Lawso n, 8 09 F.2d15 14 , 15 17 (11 thCir . 19 87 ). Tom li n p res um ab ly chal le ng es th e g ov ern m en t’s ev id en ce o n t he sp eci fic in te nt el em en t, b ecau se he arg ue s t ha t the go ve rn m en t “pr es en te d l it tl e ev id en ce s ho win g why Mr. Tom li n wo ul d d el ib erat el y co m m itfrau d upo n t he go ve rn m en t.” App el la nt ’s Bri ef at13 . The s pe ci fic in te ntrequi redby the st atut e is th e “ in te ntto de cei ve by m ak in g afal se or f rau du le ntst at em en t.” Un it edSta te s v . Dotha rd , 66 6 F.2 d 4 98 , 50 3 (1 1t h C ir. 1 98 2) . The g ov ern m en t p res en te d e vi de nc e o n thi s el em en t, i nc lu di ng ev id en ce tha t To m li n m ad e fal se st at em en ts di rect ly to go ve rn m en t o ffi ci al s an d fa il edto ren ou nc e th os e fal se st at em en ts ev enaft er le arn in g t ha t the EPA was co nduc ti ng anin ve st ig at io n i nt o h is all eg at io ns . The go ve rn m en t al so pre se nt edev id en ce fr om whi chth e jury cou ldin fer t ha t To m li n us edhi s fa ls e st at em en ts ab ou t en vi ro nm en ta l co nt am in at io n a ndth e p ur po rte d EPA in ve st ig at io n t o a vo idpay in g re nton th e StreetDream s p ro pe rty. Becau se 6 Case: 12-11305 Date Filed: 12/12/2012 Page: 6 of 11th atev id en ce i s n otso tenuo us th ata co nv ic ti on wou ldbe sh oc ki ng , th e d is tri ct

co urt d idno t err in de nyin g To m li n’s Ru le 29 m ot io n fo r a jud gm en t o f acqui tt al
. III. Tom li n a ls o c on te nd s t ha t the di st ric t co urt erredinit s s en te nc in g g ui de li ne s cal cu la ti on by inc lu di ng th e sa la rie s o f EPA in ve st ig at or s i n t he am ou ntof l os s. W e rev ie w forcle ar erro r th e d is tri ctco urt’s d et erm in at io n o f th e am ou ntof l os s, an d we r ev ie w de n ov o t he di st ric t co urt’s i nt erp ret at io n o f th e se nt en ci ng gu id el in es . See Un it edSta te s v . Barri ng to n, 6 48 F.3d11 78 , 11 97 (11 th Cir
. 20 11 ). Sect io n 2 B1 .1(b )(1 )(D) o f th e se nt en ci ng gu id el in es im po se s a s ix -le ve l in crea se to a ba se off

en se lev el if t he am ou ntof l os s i s m or e th an$3 0,0 00 bu t l es s th an$7 0,0 00 . The ap pl ic at io n n ot es to § 2 B1 .1 d efi ne “ lo ss ” as th e g reat er o f actua l l os s o r in te nd edlo ss , and“ actua l l os s” is de fin edas “ th e rea so nabl y fo res eeab le pe cu ni ary ha rm th atres ul te d fr om

th e o ffen se .” U.S.S.G. § 2 B1 .1 cmt. n.3 (A)(i ). Pecuni ary harm , inturn , is de fin edas “ ha rm th atis m on et ary orth at 3 ot he rwis e is read il y

m eas ur ab le inm on ey ,” an d d oe s n otin cl ud e “ em ot io na l

“When it comes to the interpr etation of the guidelines, Commentary and Application 3 Notes of the Sente ncingGuidelines ar e bindingon the cour ts unless they

contra dict the plain meaningof the text of the Guidelines.” United States v. Wi lks, 464 F.3d 1240, 1245 (11th Cir. 2006) (quotation mar

ks omitt ed). 7 Case: 12-11305 Date Filed: 12/12/2012 Page: 7 of 11di st res s, h arm to rep ut at io n, o r ot he r no n- eco no m ic harm .” Id . § 2 B1 .1 cmt. n.3 (a)( ii i). Th e ap pl ic at io n n ot es als o p ro vi de th atth e “ [c]os t t o t he go ve rn m en t o f . . . the pro se cu ti on an d c riminal in ve st ig at io n o f anoff en se ” is ex cl ud edfro m lo ss . Id. § 2B 1.1 cmt. n .3(D) (ii ). The go ve rn m en t n ot es th atth ere wer e two sep arat e in ve st ig at io ns inth is
cas e: on e in ve st ig at io n t o l oc at e th e p ers on who was t ry in g t o g etm on ey fro m Tom li n b y

cla im in g t o b e anEPA age ntan d asec on d i nv es ti ga ti on to est ab li sh th atTom li n h adm ad e fal se rep res en ta ti on s t o EPA s pe ci al ag en ts ab ou t the al le ge d EPA em

pl oyee. The co st s as so ci at edwith t he sec on d i nv es ti ga ti on were no t i nc lu de d i n t he lo ss am ou nt , con si st en t wi th th e “ Exc lu si on s fr om lo ss ” ap pl ic at io n n ot e to U.S.S.G. § 2 B1 .1. Id . § 2 B1 .1 cmt. n .3(D) (ii ). Tom li n, h owe ve r, arg ue s t ha t the di st ric t co urt erredinit s ca lc ul at io n o f th e lo ss am ou ntbe cau se itin cl ud edth e sa la rie s o f EPA ag en ts who pa rti ci pa te d i n t he fir stin ve st ig at io n. To m li n arg ue s tha t tho se sal ari es , whi chto ta le d $ 39 ,41 4.4 0, sh ou ldno t h av e b een in cl ud edbe cau se th e g ov ern m en t wo ul d h av e h adto pay th e ag en ts whet he r or

no t the y were i nv es ti ga ti ng hi m . Whi le Tom li n m ig htbe co rrec t th atth e EPA wou ldha ve ha d t o p ay it s ag en ts ’ sa la rie s wh ethe r orno t the y were in ve st ig at in g h im , th atdo es no t n eces sa ril y m ean th atth e d is tri ctco urt erredinit s lo ss cal cu la ti on . Nin e sp eci al ag en ts fro m th e EPA sp en t 3 20 ho ur s l oo ki ng for 8 Case: 12-11305 Date Filed: 12/12/2012 Page: 8 of 11Ro be rt, t he all eg ed ly corruptEPA em pl oyee, as adi rectres ul t o f Tom li n’s fa ls e st at em en ts . The t im e sp en t s earc hi ng forRo be rt c ou ldha ve be ensp en t in ve st ig at in g o th er m at te rs , andth e d is tri ctco urt ca lc ul at edth e v al ue of t hi s l os t ti m e b as edon th e sa la rie s o f th os e EPA ag en ts . 4 The ap pl ic at io n n ot es to § 2 B1 .1 re co gn iz e th e d iff ic ul ty of acc ur at el y cal cu la ti ng th e lo ss incas es in vo lv in g fr au d o r de cei t, n ot in g t ha t “ [t]he co urt n eed
on ly m ak e a rea so nabl e es ti m at e o f th e lo ss ,” an d tha t “ th e co urt’s l os s de te rm in at io n i s en ti tl edto ap pr op ria te de fere nc e.” U.S.S.G. § 2 B1 .1 cmt. n .3(C ); Barr in gt on , 64 8 F .3dat 1 19 7. Whil e th e ap pl ic at io n n ot es do pro vi de th atlo ss do es no t i nc lu de th e co stof i nv es ti ga ti ng anoff en se , th e sa la rie s o f th e EPA ag en ts inth is cas e d o n otrep res en t the “ co stof i nv es ti ga ti ng ” Tom li n’s o ffen se , be cau se th atin ve st ig at io n d idno t b eg in un ti l No ve m be r 18 . Ins te ad , th ey rep res en t the ti m e th e EPA sp en t i nv es ti ga ti ng Ro be rt— a n on -ex is te ntpe rs on—as a d ire ctres ul t o f Tom li n’s fa ls e st at em en t. The di st ric t co urt the refo re d idno t err

Tomlin concede s in his brief that “the g overnme nt arguably lost some tim e that might 4 have be en spent on a

nother investig ation” but argues that the lost time stil l should not have bee n included in the loss amount beca use there is no evidence that other investig ations would have been a better useof time. Appellant’s B rief at 10–11. That argument misses the point. W hether or not other investig ations would have be en more fruitful does not cha ng e the f act that the g overnme nt lost the opportunity to pursue those investig ations beca use it was instead se arc hing for Rober t as a re sult of Tomlin’s false statements. 9 Case: 12-11305 Date Filed: 12/12/2012 Page: 9 of 11by inc lu di ng th e co stof tha t t im e in cal cu la ti ng th e lo ss to th e g ov ern m en t. 5 IV. Tom li n’s fi na l co nt en ti on is th atth e sa la rie s o f th e EPA ag en ts who pa rti ci pa te d i n t he fir stin ve st ig at io n s ho ul d n otha ve be enin cl ud edinth e res ti tu ti on am ou ntbe cau se res ti tu ti on is in te nd edto “ m ak e th e v ic ti m who le ,” an d th e ag en ts ’ sa la rie s wo ul d h av e b een pa idreg ard le ss of To m li n’s ac ti on s. App el la nt ’s Bri ef at6. We revi ew de no vo th e le ga li ty of anord er o f res ti tu ti on an d re vi ew fo r cl ear e rro r th e fac tu al fin di ng s u nd erl y in g ares ti tu ti on ord er. Uni te d S ta te s v . Vall ad ares , 54 4 F .3d12 57 , 12 69 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ). Whe n s en te nc in g ade fen da ntfora cri m e wit h an i de nt ifi ab le vi ct im who ha s s uf fere d ape cu ni ary lo ss , “ th e co urt s ha ll ord er . . . th atth e d efen da ntm ak e res ti tu ti on to th e v ic ti m

of t he off

en se .” 18 U.S.C. § 3 66 3A( a)(1 ), (c)( 1) (B). A vi ct im is a pe rs on “ di rect ly andpro xi m at el y ha rm edas ares ul t o f th e co m m is si on of anoff en se ,” 18 U.S.C. § 3 66 3A( a)(2 ), an d t he go ve rn m en t ca n qua li fy as a vi ct im of acri m e fo r res ti tu ti on pu rp os es . Uni te d S ta te s v . Mat eo s, 6 23 F.3d 13 50 , 13 70 (11 th Cir . 20 10 ). The co stof i nv es ti ga ti ng a de fen da nt , ho wev er, The g overnme nt also argues that eve n if the district court e rre d by including the ag ents’ 5 salarie s in the amount of loss, the err or would be ha rmless. “Where a district judg e cle arly states that he would impose the same sentenc e, eve n if he e rre d in calculating the guidelines, then any err or in the ca lculation is harmless.” United States v. B arne r, 572 F .3d 1239, 1248 (11th Cir. 2009). B eca

use we conclude that the district court did not err in its guidelines ca lculation, we need not r eac h that issue. 10

Case: 12-11305 Date Filed: 12/12/2012 Page: 10 of 11sh ou ldno t b e in cl ud edina res ti tu ti on ord er. See Uni te d S ta te s v . Khawaja, 1 18

F.3 d 1 45 4, 1 46 0 (1 1t h C ir. 1 99 7)
. As we h av e al read y

di sc us se d, the go ve rn m en t s uf fere d ape cu ni ary lo ss whe n i t ex pe nd ed32 0 h ou rs of i nv es ti ga to r ti m e se arch in g fo r anall eg ed ly corrupt EPA em pl oyee as a di rectres ul t o f Tom li n’s fa ls e st at em en ts . The s al ari es of th os e ag en ts do no t re pr es en t “ th e co stof i nv es ti ga ti ng th e d efen da nt ” b ecau se th e ag en ts were n otin ve st ig at in g To m li n a t tha t t im e—t he y were i ns te adin ve st ig at in g Ro be rt. Acc or di ng ly, th e d is tri ctco urt i nc lu de d t he sal ari es of t ho se EPA age nt s in th e res ti tu ti on am ou ntto acco un t fo r th atpe cuni ary lo ss . It d idno t err by do in g so . AFFIRMED.

11

Case: 12-11305 Date Filed: 12/12/2012 Page: 11 of 11