2010 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 7-1-2010 

# U SA v . James M c C ormick P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 08-4441

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2010 D e c i sion s b y an authori z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " U SA v . J ame s M c C ormick " (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1053. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010/1053NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT N o. 08- 4441 UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. J AM E S T . M CC OR M I CK , A ppel l ant APP EAL F ROM THE UNI TE D ST ATE S DI S TRI CT C OURT

FOR TH E DI STRI CT O F NEW J ERSEY ( D . C . C r i m . N o. 07- cr - 00935- 001) D istric t Ju d g e : H o n o ra b le J e ro m e B . S im a n d le Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

J une 30, 2010 B efor e: SL O V I T E R , B A R R Y and H A R D I M A N , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on Fi l ed: J ul y1, 2010)

OP I NI ON

B A R R Y , C i r cui tJ udge J a me s T. M c Co r mi c k a p p e a l s f r o m th e j u d g me n to f

s e n t e n c e . W e wi l l a f

f i r m.B egg and D ’ A ngel o w er e coope r at i ng w i th the governm ent ’ s i nves t i gat i on. 1 -2- I. In M ay2 0 0 6 , the g o v ern m en t beg an inv esti g ati n g co rrup ti o n am o n g fo u r m em b ers of the Pl eas antvi l l e B oar d of Educat i on ( “PB O E ”) , al l of w hom w er e r ece i vi ng br i bes fro m Jo h n D ’A n g elo, an insu ran ce b rok er w ith R F C F inan cial S erv ices (“R F C ”), i n return f o r a w a rd in g R F C th e sc h o o l d istric t’s in su ra n c e b ro k e ra g e c o n tra c t. B e c a u se a f if th v o te w as neede d t o aw ar d R FC the contr act , w hen a PB O E vaca ncyar os e i n the s um m erof 2006, L oui s M i s t er , pr es i dentof the R eal D emocr at i c C l ub, s ugges t ed thatJ ames M cC or m i ck be appoi nt ed t o fi l l the vac ancy . A pr econdi t i on of hi s appoi nt m entw as t hat he vot e t o aw ar d R FC the i ns ur ance br oker age c ontr act . I n A ugus t2006, M cC or m i ck w as appoi nt ed. O n Sept ember1, 2006, B ruce Begg, th e C E O o f th e A e tn a R o o f

i n g C o m p a n y, 1 w ro te a c h e c k f

o r $ 1 ,0 0 0 p a y a b le to M iste r. M iste r sh a re d th e m o n e yw ith M c C o rm ick to keep M cC or m i ck “i n l i ne. ” ( See A 441- 42) . M i s t ert ol d J ay s on A dams, a mem berof the PB O E , thatm oneyhad bee n gi ven t o M cC or m i ck. A ta meet i ng on Sept ember12, 2006, the PB O E aw ar ded R FC the i ns ur ance br oker age c ontr act . I m m edi at el ypr i ort o thatm eet i ng, “A dams t ol d [M cC or m i ck] thatas s oon as i tw as done, w e w er e al l goi ng t o be pai d. M r . M cC or m i ck s m i l ed and he i m pl i ed that h e w as re ad y . ” (A 6 2 4 . ) T w o w ee k s af ter th e v o te, B eg g , at M cC o rm ick’s in stru c tio n , w ire d $ 3 ,5 0 0 to M c C o rm ick ’s g irlfr ien d ’s b a n k a c c o u n t.-3-

B utM cC or m i ck w as di s s at i s fi ed. H e “w as ups etthathe had onl yr ece i ved $3, 500.

. . . [H e ] e x p re ss e d th a t if h e d id n ’t g e t [ w h a t h e w a s p ro m ise d ], th e n h e w o u ld u se h is vot e t o t erm i nat e the contr act . ” ( A 629. ) A ta meet i ng on O ct ober24, 2006, M cC or m i ck change d hi s vot e and ha d R FC ’ s contr actr es ci nded, purpor t edl ybeca us e of rum or s he h a d h e a r d th a ts o me o f

h i s c o - c o n s p i r a t o r s we r e c o o p e r a t i n g wi th f e d e r a l a u th o r i t i e s . He s t at ed thathe “w i s h[ed he ] nevert ook thi s m oney . ” ( A 416. ) I n N ovember2006, M c C o rm ick c o n tac ted F B I S p e c ial A g e n t T h o m a s R a f ter y . In su b se q u e n t m e e tin g s w ith R aft ery , M cC or m i ck off er ed numer ous , oft en conf l i ct i ng r at i onal es forhi s acc ept ance of the $3, 500. A ju ryc o n v icte d M c C o rm ick o f c o n sp ira c yto e x to rt u n d e r c o lo r o f o f f icia l rig h t, 1 8 U . S . C . § 1 9 5 1 (a); at tem p t t o ex tortu n d er c o lor o f o ff ici al ri g h t, 1 8 U . S . C . § 1 9 5 1 (a); a c c e p tin g a n d a g re e in g to a c c e p t a b rib e , 1 8 U .S .C . § 6 6 6 (a )(1 )(B ); u se o f in ter sta te f a c i l i t i e s t o d i s tr i b u t e th e p r o c e e d s o f a b r i b e , 1 8 U. S . C. § 1 9 5 2 ( a ) ( 1 ) & ( a ) ( 3 ) ; a n d two count s of m oneyl aunder i ng, 18 U . S. C . § 1956( a) ( 1) ( B ) ( I ) . H i s G ui del i nes r ange w as 41 t o 51 m onths i m pr i s onm ent . T he D i s tr i ctC our ts ent ence d hi m t o 42 m onths im p riso n m e n t. II. T he D i s tr i ctC our thad j ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 18 U . S. C . § 3231. W e have a p p e lla te ju ri s d ic tio n p u rs u a n t to 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 7 4 2 (a ) a n d 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 .-4- A. M cC or m i ck ar gues , fi r s t , thatthe D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s admi s s i on of evi dence of the $1, 000 paym ents har ed byM i s t erand hi m s el f vi ol at ed Feder al R ul es of Evi dence 403 and 4 0 4 (b ). W e re v ie w th is ru lin g f o r a b u s e o f

d is c re tio n . U

ni t ed Stat es v. Sokol ow , 91 F. 3d 3 9 6 , 4 0 2 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 6 ). R ul e 404( b) pr os cr i bes the admi s s i on of “[ e] vi dence of othercr i m es , w r ongs , or a c ts . . . to p ro v e th e c h a ra c ter o f a p e rso n in o rd e r to sh o w a c tio n in c o n f o rm ity ther ew i th. ” H ow ever , the R ul e “doe s notext end t o evi dence of ac t s w hi ch ar e ‘ i ntr i ns i c’ t o the cha r ged off

ens e. ” Fed. R . E vi d. 404( b) , A dvi s oryC om m i t t ee N ot es t o 1991 A m e n d m e n ts. In o th e r w o rd s, “ [ w ]h e n th e e v id e n c e o f a n o th e r c rim e is n e c e ss a ryto es t abl i s h an el ementof the off ens e bei ng tr i ed, ther e i s no ‘ othercr i m e. ’ ” U ni t ed Stat es v. B l yden , 964 F. 2d 1375, 1378 ( 3d C i r . 1992) . H er e, the D i s tr i ctC our tfound the di s put ed evi dence t o be “i ntr i ns i c t o the cons pi r acy ” bec aus e i t“pr ovi de[d] i m por t antpr oof” r egar di ng m ember s hi p i n, the purpos e of, and M cC or m i ck’ s part i ci pat i on i n the c o n sp ira c y . (A 1 8 1 .) R u le 4 0 4 (b ) is th u s in a p p lica b le. R u le 4 0 3 , o f c o u rse , w o u ld p ro v id e f o r th e e x c lu sio n o f

su c h re lev a n t ev id e n c e w h e re “ its p ro b a tiv e v a lu e is s ubs t ant i al l youtw ei ghed bythe dange rof unfa i rpr ej udi ce. ” The D i s tr i ctC our tdi d not abus e i t s di s cr et i on i n fi ndi ng thatthe $1, 000 paym entw as “hi ghl ypr obat i ve” a nd co n clud ing that there w as n o “u n d u e p rejud ice.” (A 1 8 1 . )-5- B. M cC o rm ick a rgu es, ne x t, that im p rop er c o m m en ts du ri n g the g o v ern m en t’ s r ebutt al s um m at i on cons t i tut ed pr os ecut or i al m i s conduct . W e r evi ew forabus e of d is c re tio n . U

ni t ed Stat es v. R etos , 2 5 F . 3 d 1 2 2 0 , 1 2 2 8 n . 1 0 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 4 ). D efe ns e couns el , i n s um m at i on, cr i t i ci zed the governm entfori t s l ack of r ecor ded conver s at i ons i nvol vi ng M cC or m i ck. I n r es pons e t o thatcr i t i que, the governm ents t at ed i n i t s r ebutt al s um m at i on that“ther e i s m or e t o i tth[a] n y ou know . T her e [a r e] other cas es bes i de the one thati s pr es ent ed t o y ou. ” ( A 1295. ) A l though i ti s farfr om cl eart hat thi s w as the s t at ementof w hi ch M cC or m i ck compl ai ned atthe t i m e, he di d m ake a r ather nons peci fi c cont empora neous obj ect i on and moved fora mi s tr i al , ar gui ng t o the D i s tr i ct C our tthatthe governm ent ’ s s t at ementi m pl i ed t o the j urythatther e w as “s om ethi ng el s e” c o n c e rn in g h im . (A 1 2 9 9 ). T h e C o u rt d is a g re e d . A fai rr eadi ng of the r ecor d s uppor t s the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s concl us i on thatthe g o v e rn m e n t h a d n o t s u g g e s te d th e re w e re o th e r i n v e s tig a tio n s c o n c e rn in g M c C o rm ic k . D u ri n g su m m ati o n , d ef en se c o u n sel tw ice ref

erred to co o p era ti n g w itn esse s w h o w o re wi r e s i n f

u r th e r a n c e o f

a n i n v e s t i g a t i o n i n t o th e c o n d u c to f Ra f a e l Ve l e z , a n o th e rP BO E m ember . T he cha l l enged s t at ementm er el yr efe r ence d thatfac t . A ccor di ngl y , the D i s tr i ct C o u rt d id n o t ab u se its d isc re tio n in d e n y in g M c C o rm ick ’s m o tio n f o r a m istria l. C. M cC o rm ick n ex t con tend s tha t th e D istri ct C o u rterred in d en y ing h is m o ti o n fo r aM c Co r mi c k a r g u e s t o u s th a tth e v e r d i c ti s a g a i n s tth e we i g h to f th e e v i d e n c e . He 2 fai l ed, how ever , t o pr es entthi s ar gum enti n a pos t - tr i al m ot i on t o the D i s tr i ctC our t , and, -6- new tr i al pr emi s ed on the governm ent ’ s fai l ur e t o di s cl os e mat er i al s i n vi ol at i on of G ig lio v. U ni t ed Stat es , 4 0 5 U .S . 1 5 0 (1 9 7 2 ). A c c o rd in g to M c C o rm ick , d u rin g M iste r’s trial – w hi ch occ urr ed af

t erM cC or m i ck’ s – “i tcame t o l i ghtthat. . . A dams[] w as ei therfi r ed, o r fo rce d to resign fro m the D ep artm en t of Y o u th an d F am il yS erv ices (‘D Y F S ’)” beca us e, among ot herthi ngs , “he w as us i ng a s t at e vehi cl e on per s onal t i m e, and l i ed w hen conf

r ont ed abouti t . ” ( A ppel l ant ’ s B r . at26. ) W e r evi ew l egal concl us i ons de novo a n d f in d in g s o f

f a c t f o r c le a r e rr o r. U

ni t ed Stat es v. Mi lan , 3 0 4 F . 3 d 2 7 3 , 2 8 6 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 2 ). T h e g o v e rn m e n t’s o b lig a tio n to d isc lo se im p e a c h m e n t ev id e n c e e x ten d s to m a te ri a l in th e p ro s e c u to r’ s c o n s tru c tiv e p o s s e s s io n . U ni t ed Stat es v. R eye r os , 537 F. 3d 270, 281 ( 3d C i r . 2008) . W hen cons i der i ng the cons truct i ve pos s es s i on of m at er i al p o ss e ss e d b ysta te a g e n ts, th re e f a c to rs a re re lev a n t: “(1 ) w h e th e r th e p a rtyw ith k n o w led g e o f

th e in f o rm a tio n is a c tin g o n th e g o v e rn m e n t’s ‘b e h a lf’ o r is u n d e r its ‘co n tr o l’ ; ( 2 ) th e e x tent to w h ich s tat e a n d fe d era l go v ern m en ts are p art of a ‘team , ’ are p a rticip a tin g in a ‘jo in t in v e stig a tio n ’ o r a re sh a rin g re so u rc e s; a n d (3 ) w h e th e r th e e n tity char ged w i th cons truct i ve pos s es s i on has ‘ r eadyacc es s ’ t o the evi dence . ” I d. at282 ( quot at i on om i t t ed) . T he D i s tr i ctC our tcorr ect l yconcl uded thatthe R eyeros fa ctors r e qu i r e d a fi nd i ng tha tthe go ve rnmen tdi d n otc on s truc t i ve l ypo s s e s s the D Y FS m at eri al s. 2a c c o rd in g ly, it h a s b e e n w a iv e d . U ni t ed Stat es v. G r ubbs , 5 0 6 F . 3 d 4 3 4 , 4 4 3 (6th C ir . 2 0 0 7 ). A lso f

o r th e f irst tim e , M c C o rm ick a ss e rts th a t: (1 ) th e g o v e rn m e n t im p ro p e rly i ns i nuat ed “gui l tbyas s oci at i on” dur i ng i t s r ebutt al s um m at i on; and ( 2) the governm ent v io late d h is F if

th A m e n d m e n t rig h ts a g a in st s e lf -in c rim in a tio n . W e h a v e c a re f u lly re v ie w e d th e re c o rd a n d f in d n o p la in e rr o r w ith re s p e c t to e ith e r a s s e rt io n .

-7- D. W e r evi ew the s ent ence i m pos ed forr eas onabl enes s and w i l l notr ever s e abs entan a b u s e o f d is c re tio n . See U

nited S tates v. W

ise , 5 1 5 F . 3 d 2 0 7 , 2 1 7 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 8 ). M cC or m i ck cont ends thatthe D i s tr i ctC ourtfai l ed t o appr opr i at el ycons i derthe § 3 5 5 3 (a ) f a c to rs a n d , in s o d o in g , im p o se d a su b sta n tiv e lyu n re a so n a b le s e n ten c e . T h is cont ent i on i s w i thoutm er i t . T he D i s tr i ctC our tcons i der ed M cC or m i ck’ s ar gum ent s but neverthel es s w as per s uaded bythe s er i ous nes s of hi s offe ns es , hi s eff or t s t o hi de the b rib e , h is c o n f

lictin g sto rie s re g a rd in g h is a c c e p tan c e o f th e $ 3 ,5 0 0 , an d h is f

a ilu re to acc eptr es pons i bi l i ty . H i s bot t om - of- the- G ui del i nes s ent ence w as notunr eas onabl e. M cC or m i ck al s o cont ends thatthe D i s tr i ctC our t“di d notgi ve meani ngful co n side rati o n to se n tenc ing d ispa ri tyam o n g sim il arlysitu ated d ef en d an ts, ” (A p p ell an t’ s B r. at 3 9 ), n o tin g th a t o th e r c o n sp ira to rs – w h o M c C o rm ick f a ils to n o te p led g u ilty a n d /o r c o o p e ra ted w ith th e g o v e rn m e n t – re c e iv e d les se r se n ten c e s. T h e re c o rd re b u ts thi s cont ent i on, and the D i s tr i ctC our tconcl uded thatM cC or m i ck’ s s ent ence w as “p rop o rt ion al w ith the s en tenc e[ s] of o ther c o n sp ir ators.” (A 1 4 5 6 . ) W e se e n o erro r. III . T he j udgm entof s ent ence w i l l be af fi r m ed.