A ft erexami ni ng t he br i efs and appe l l at e r ecor d, t hi s panel has det erm i ned * unani m ous l yt o gr antt he part i es ’ r eques tfora dec i s i on on the br i efs w i thoutor al a rg u m e n t. See F ed . R . A p p . P . 3 4 (f); 10 th C ir . R . 3 4 . 1 (G ). T h e c ase is th ere fo re or der ed s ubm i t t ed w i t houtor al ar gum ent . T hi s or derand j udgm enti s notbi ndi ng pr ece dent , exce ptundert he doctr i nes of l aw of the ca s e, r es j udi cat a, and col l at er al es t oppel . I tm aybe ci t ed, how ever , fori t s per s uas i ve val ue cons i s t ent w ith F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 2 .1 a n d 1 0 th C ir . R . 3 2 .1 . 

## F I LED United States C ourt of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### M ar c h 30,2007 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS F O R T H E T E N T H C IR C U IT UNI T E D S T AT E S OF AM E RI CA ,

Pl ai nt i ff- A ppel l ee, v. LEE E. RO BB I N S,

D e fe n d a n t-A p p e llan t. N o. 06- 5014 ( D. C. No . 0 4 - CR - 1 0 4 - 0 1 - K) (N .D . O k la .)

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T * B efor e LU CE RO , M c KAY , and GORS UCH , C i rcui tJudg es.

A ppel l antL ee E. R obbi ns w as convi ct ed bya j uryof fi ft een c ount s of t ax fra u d . In th is direct cri m inal ap p ea l, M r. R o b b ins c h all en g es th e d istri ct co u rt ’s deni al of hi s m ot i on fors ever ance , t he ade quacyof the ver di ctform , t he cal cul at i on of t ax l os s fors ent enci ng purpos es , and the i m pos i t i on of cos t s of p ro s e c u tio n .- 2- I. R obbi ns & A s s oci at es ( R & A ) w as a bookkee pi ng and t ax r eturn pr epar at i on b u sin e ss w h ich h e lp e d c lien ts m in im ize th e ir tax p a ym e n ts a n d m a x im ize th e ir re f u n d s b yfa lse lyc h a ra c ter izin g n o n d e d u c tib le p e rso n a l ex p e n se s a s d e d u c tib le bus i nes s expens es . M r . R obbi ns , the pr i nci pal of R & A , r ecrui t ed, hi r ed, and t r ai ned hi s co- defe ndantG abr i el B onnerforw or k i n R & A ’ s offi ce i n T ul s a, O kl ahoma. A ft erM r . R obbi ns m oved t o G eor gi a and ope ned an A t l ant a off i ce, he l eftM r . B onneri n char ge of the Tul s a off i ce. M r . R obbi ns cont i nued t o r evi ew M r. B o n n e r’ s w o rk a n d h e e -file d th e re tu rn s p re p a re d a t b o th o ffic e s . T h e g o v e rn m e n t ch a rg e d M r. R o b b in s a n d M r. B o n n e r w ith c o n sp ira c yto defr aud the I R S, M r . R obbi ns w i th 15 count s of ai di ng and as s i s t i ng the pr epar at i on and s ubm i s s i on of fa l s e and f r audul entt ax r eturns i n vi ol at i on of 2 6 U .S .C . § 7 2 0 6 (2 ), a n d M r. B o n n e r w ith 5 0 d iffe re n t c o u n ts o f th e s a m e c ri m e . B efor e tr i al , M r . R obbi ns m oved fors epar at e tr i al s , ar gui ng thathe w oul d be pr ej udi ced bybei ng t r i ed w i t h M r . B onner . T he di s tr i ctcour tdeni ed the mot i on a n d th e p a rt ie s p ro c e e d e d to th e irjo in t tr ia l. A tt he cl os e of e vi dence , M r . R obbi ns r enew ed hi s m ot i on fors ever ance and the di s t r i ctcour tagai n deni ed i t . T he j uryr eac hed a ve r di ctacqui t t i ng M r . B onneron al l count s and fi ndi ng M r . R obbi ns notgui l tyof cons pi r acybut gui l t yof the 15 i ndi vi dual count s . T he di s tr i ctcour tdeni ed M r . R obbi ns ’ m ot i on fora new t r i al and s ent ence d hi m t o a t ot al of 41 m onths ’ i m pr i s onm ent , bas ed on- 3-

a tax lo ss o f

o v e r $ 4 0 0 ,0 0 0 . It also o rd e re d h im to p a yth e c o sts o f p ro se c u tio n in th e a m o u n t o f

$ 1 1 ,4 3 0 .6 6 , a s p ro v id e d b y§ 7 2 0 6 . II. O n appea l , M r . R obbi ns fi r s tas s er t s thatthe di s tr i ctcour terr ed i n deny i ng hi s m ot i on fora s ever ance beca us e hi s defe ns e w as ant agoni s t i c t o thatof M r . B onner . A m ot i on fors ever ance bas ed on conf l i ct i ng defe ns es tr i gger s “a th re e -s te p in q u ir y ” o n th e p a rt o f th e tr ia l c o u rt . Uni t ed Stat es v. P urs l ey , 474 F. 3d 757, 765 ( 10t h C i r . 2007) . T he fi r s ts t ep r equi r es a det erm i nat i on of

“ w h e th e r th e d e fe n se s p re se n ted a re so a n tag o n istic th a t th e ya re m u tu a lly excl us i ve, ” s o t hat“the ac cept ance of one pa r ty ’ s defe ns e w oul d t end t o pr ecl ude t he ac qui t t al of the other , ort hatthe gui l tof one de fenda ntt ends t o es t abl i s h the i nnocenc e of the other . ” Id. (q u o tatio n s o m itt e d ). N e x t, “b e c a u se m u tu a lly a n t a g o n i s t i c d e fe n s e s a r e n o tp r ej u d i c i a l p e rs e , a d e fe n d a n tmu s tf u r th e rs h o w a s er i ous r i s k t hata j oi ntt r i al w oul d compromi s e a s peci fi c tr i al r i ghtorpr eventt he j ur yfr om m aki ng a r el i abl e j udgm entaboutgui l tori nnocenc e. ” Id . ( quot at i ons an d alt era ti o n s o m itted). “[I]f the fir st tw o fa ctors a re m et, the tri al co u rt exer ci s es i t s di s cr et i on and w ei ghs the pr ej udi ce t o a part i cul ardefe ndantcaus ed byj oi nderagai ns tt he obvi ous l yi m por t antcons i der at i ons of ec onom yand expedi t i on i n j udi ci al admi ni s t r at i on. ” Id. (q u o ta tio n s a n d a lte ra tio n s o m itte d ). “W her e the tr i al cour tul t i m at el ydeni es s ever ance , ” thi s cour tw i l l r ever s e the deci s i on “onl yw her e the defendanthas demonstr at ed an a bus e of di s cr et i on. ” Id.- 4-

A t trial, M r. R o b b in s a n d M r. B o n n e r e a c h a ttem p ted to c a st a ll b lam e fo r t ax fra u d o n the o ther. M r. R o b b ins il lustrat es th e a n tago n ist ic na ture of thei rdefe ns es bypoi nt i ng outthatM r . B onnert es t i fi ed thati tw as M r . R obbi ns w h o “ c a u s e d a ll th e w ro n g a n d ille g a l ta x re tu rn s to b e file d .” A p lt. B r. a t 2 1 . A n d , ac c o rd in g to M r. R o b b in s, “ B o n n e r’s c o u n se l so u g h t to d e lib e ra tely underm i ne R obbi ns ’ defe ns e att r i al w i th everyw i tnes s s o thatB onnerappea r ed onl yt o be s om eone w ho w as a dat a cl erk. ” Id . at10 . M r. R ob bins al so compl ai ns t hatM r . B onner ’ s couns el act ed as an “a ddi t i onal pr os ecut or ” by i dent i fy i ng hi m s el f as a form erpr os ecut orand t el l i ng t he j uryt o di s bel i eve the a rg u m e n ts m a d e b yM r. R o b b in s ’ a tto rn e y . Id. at15. M r . R obbi ns has s how n t hathe and M r . B onnerpr es ent ed defens es w hi ch “w er e s uffi ci ent l yexcl us i ve and a nt agoni s t i c. ” P urs l ey , 4 7 4 F .3 d a t 7 6 5 . N evert hel es s , he has notes t abl i s hed the s peci fi c pr ej udi ce r equi r ed atthe s econd anal yt i c s t ep. “[D ] efe ndant s ar e notent i t l ed t o s ever ance m er el ybeca us e they m ayhave a bet t erchance of ac qui t t al i n s epar at e tr i al s . ” Id. at766 ( quot at i on and al t er at i on om i t t ed) . “D es pi t e thei rdi ffe r i ng t heor i es of defens e, not hi ng p re v e n ted [ M r. R o b b in s] f ro m p re se n tin g e v id e n c e [ o r a rg u m e n t] to su p p o rt h is t heoryeven i f i tw as i ncons i s t entw i th [M r . B onner ’ s ] defe ns e. ” Id. B e c a u se M r. R o b b in s d id n o t d e m o n stra te th e re q u isite p reju d ice , the re is no need “ t o expl i ci t l yengage i n the thi r d s t ep of ouri nqui ry–w ei ghi ng pr ej udi ce t o t he defendantagai ns tcons i der at i ons of j udi ci al economy . ” Id. a t 7 6 7 . O n th is- 5-

r ecor d, t he di s t r i ctcour t ’ s deni al of the mot i on t o s everdoes notamount t o an abus e of di s cr et i on. III . M r. R o b b ins n ex t argu es th at he is en ti tl ed to a n ew tr ial b ec au se th e jury ver di ctform w as “i r r egul ar ” and “ bogus . ” A pl t . B r . at7, 31. W e r evi ew the p ro p ri e ty o f

v e rd ic t fo rm s u n d e r a n a b u s e o f d is c re tio n s ta n d a rd . Uni t ed Stat es v. St iger , 4 1 3 F .3 d 1 1 8 5 , 1 1 9 0 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 5 ). A p p ly in g th a t sta n d a rd , w e w ill r ever s e onl yi f w e have “s ubs t ant i al doubtthatthe j uryw as fai r l ygui ded. ” Un itedS ta tes v . Sm ith , 1 3 F .3 d 1 4 2 1 , 1 4 2 4 (1 0 th C ir . 1 9 9 4 ) ( q u o ta tio n o m itte d ). M o reo v er, be ca u se th ere w as n o o bjecti o n at tri al, w e re v iew o n lyfo r plain e rror, w hi ch i s “err ort hataffect s t he defendant ’ s r i ghtt o a fa i rand i m part i al tr i al . ” Id. M r. R o b b ins a rgu es th at th e o n lyp o ssible ex p lana ti o n fo r th e jury ’s a c q u itt a l o f

M r. B o n n e r a n d c o n v ictio n o f M r. R o b b in s is c o n f

u sio n a ttribu tab le to t he v erdi ctform . A plt . B r. at27 . T he v erdi ctform subm i t t ed to the juryw as a t abl e w i t h col um ns pr ovi di ng t he dat e of e ach c har ged offens e, the name of the fi l i ng t axpay er , and a pl ace fort he j uryfor eper s on t o ci r cl e ei ther“gui l ty ” or“not gui l t y . ” R . , V ol . I , D oc. 72. I n hi s cl os i ng ar gum ent , M r . R obbi ns ’ att or ney advi s ed the j ur or s t hatt he t abl e “mi rr or s the one i n the i ndi ctm entand i thas on t her e the y ear s and s o for t h. . . . I f y ou corr el at e the exhi bi t s w i th the cha r t , y ou s houl d be abl e t o m ake y ourdeci s i ons on thes e i ndi vi dual count s . ” Id. , S u p ’l V o l. I I, a t 3 5 .- 6-

O n a p p e a l, ho w e v e r, M r. R o b b in s c laim s th e fo rm is flaw e d fo r fa ilu re to “s etoutdet ai l s of ea ch count . ” A pl t . B r . at7. W e have pr evi ous l yhel d that

“ [ t] h e p u rp o s e o f

th e v e rd ic t fo rm is n o t to re p e a t th e e le m e n ts o f th e o ffe n s e . T h e lan g u a g e o n th e fo rm se rv e s o n lyto id e n tifyw h e re th e ju rysh o u ld in d ica te i t s ver di cton eac h count . . . . T he fa ctthatthe ques t i on on t he ver di ctform does notcont ai n t he l anguage t he i ns t ruct i ons cont ai n i s i m m at er i al . ” Uni t ed Stat es v. O v e rh o lt, 307 F. 3d 1231, 1248 ( 10th C i r . 2002) . T he form s ubm i t t ed t o the R obbi ns / B onnerj ur yful fi l l ed i t s i nt ended purpos e. A s a cons equenc e, w e s ee no e r r o ri n c o n n e c t i o n wi t h t h e j u r yv e r d i c tfo r m. I V. M r. R ob bins as ser t s that the d i stri ctcou rterr ed in cal culat i ng the tax- l oss amount at t r i but abl e t o hi s cr i m es , a det erm i nat i on w hi ch affec t s hi s s ent ence u n d e r t h e a d v is o ry F e d e ra l S e n te n c in g G u id e lin e s . See U. S . S . G. § 2 T 1 . 1 . On gu i deli ne is sues, w e revi ew l egal quest i on s de novo , fac tual fi ndi ngs forcl ear err or , and gi ve due de fer ence t o the di s tr i ctcour t ’ s appl i cat i on of the gui del i nes to th e fa c ts . Un itedS ta tes v . Wo lfe , 4 3 5 F . 3 d 1 2 8 9 , 1 2 9 5 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ). In d e ter m in in g th e to tal ta x lo ss , “a ll co n d u c t v io latin g th e tax law s s h o u ld be cons i der ed as par tof the s ame cour s e of c onductorcomm on s cheme orpl an u n l e s s t h e e v i d e n c e d e mo n s t r a t e s th a tth e c o n d u c ti s c l e a r l yu n r e l a t e d . ” U. S . S . G. § 2 T 1 .1 , c m t. n .2 . See a lso Uni t ed Stat es v. Hayes , 322 F. 3d 792, 801- 02 ( 4t h C i r . 2003) ( hol di ng t hatt ax l os s m ayi ncl ude amount s i n r eturns pr epar ed by- 7-

t he defendantbutnoti ncl uded i n t he i ndi ctm ent ) . T he t ax l os s pr oved attr i al a mo u n t e d t o $ 3 7 6 , 0 0 0 . Att h e s e n t e n c i n g h e a r i n g , th e g o v e rn me n tp r o d u c e d two t ax- fi l erw i t nes s es , w hos e fa l s e r etur ns w er e noti ncl uded i n the i ndi ctm ent , and an I R S agent . Par t i al l ycr edi t i ng the w i tnes s es ’ t es t i m ony , the di s tr i ctcour tfound th a t M r. R o b b in s w a s re s p o n s ib le fo r a n a d d itio n a l lo s s in th e a m o u n t o f $ 9 0 ,6 7 5 . U nd er the g uidel i nes, t his add i t i on al am ou nt i ncreased M r. R ob bins’ base offense le v e l b ytw o p o in ts . See U .S .S .G . § § 2 T 1 .1 (a ), 2 T 4 .1 (T a x T a b le ). M r. R ob bins as ser t s that the tr i al cou rti m properl ybased the t ax-l oss amount on s urpr i s e t es t i m onyr el at i ng t o r eturns notl i s t ed i n the i ndi ctm entand n o tc o n s i d e r e d b y t h e j u r y. A s fo rth e a l l e g e d “ s u rp r i s e ” a s p e c to f th e t e s t i m o n y, w e n o te th a t d e fe n se c o u n se l o bjec ted to th e a p p e a ra n c e o f th e w itn e ss e s, b u t d id n o t a s k fo r a re c e s s o r c o n tin u a n c e to d e v e lo p re b u tta l e v id e n c e . See R . , V o l. X II at4. A nd aft ert he di s t r i ctcour toverrul ed the obj ect i on, M r . R obbi ns ’ couns el t hor oughl ycr os s - exami ned the w i tnes s es . T hus , ther e i s no i ndi cat i on thatthe g o v e rn m e n t u se d a n e lem e n t o f su rp rise to p re se n t m isin fo rm a tio n to th e c o u rt. Cf . Uni t ed Stat es v. Sunr hodes , 831 F. 2d 1537, 1542 ( 10th C i r . 1987) ( “D ue pr oces s i ns ur es t hata defendantw i l l notbe s ent ence d on the bas i s of ‘m isi n fo rm ati o n o f a co n sti tuti o n al m ag n itu d e.’”) (ci tat ion o m itted). A n equal l yunavai l i ng cont ent i on i s thatthe t eac hi ngs of Uni t ed Stat es v. B ooker , 543 U . S. 220 ( 2005) pr ohi bi tthe i ncl us i on of t ax l os s ar i s i ng fr om unchar ged conduc tt hatw as notpr oven bey ond a r eas onabl e doubt . I ti s now- 8-

w e ll-se ttl e d th a t B ookerd o e s n o tp r e c l u d e “j u d i c i a l fa c t - fi n d i n g b y a pr eponder ance of the evi dence s t andar d” atthe s ent enci ng s t age unl es s the fa ctual fi ndi ngs “oper at e[] t o i ncr eas e a de fenda nt ’ s s ent ence m andat or i l y . ” Uni t ed S ta tes v . Ha ll4 7 3 F . 3 d 1 2 9 5 , 1 3 1 2 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 7 ). H ere , the d istri ct co u rt expl i ci t l y“r ecogni ze[ d] t hatt he gui del i nes ar e advi s oryand notm andat ory . ” R . , V ol . X I I at78. T he di s t r i ctcour tcomm i t t ed no cl earerr ori n det erm i ni ng t hat M r . R obbi ns caus ed a t ax l os s i n exce s s of $400, 000 and s ent enci ng hi m bas ed on th a t a m o u n t. V. M r . R obbi ns ’ fi nal i s s ue i s hi s cl ai m thatthe di s tr i ctcour tcomm i t t ed err or i n or der i ng hi m t o pay$11, 430. 66 as the cos t s of pr os ecut i on w i thouthear i ng evi dence t o j us t i fyt he as s es s ed amount . T he i m pos i t i on of the cos t s of p ro se c u tio n is m a n d a to ryu n d e r th e c o n tro lli n g sta tu te, w h ich p ro v id e s th a t a per s on convi ct ed of f

i l i ng a fa l s e t ax r eturn “ sh a llbe fi ned notm or e than $100, 000 . . . , ori m pr i s oned notm or e than 3 y ear s , orboth, t ogetherw i th the c o s ts o f p ro s e c u tio n .” 2 6 U .S .C . § 7 2 0 6 (e m p h a s is a d d e d ). T h e p rese n tenc e re p o rt(P S R ) w as th e so u rce o f th e a sses sed am o u n t. In hi s w r i t t en r es pons e t o t he PSR , M r . R obbi ns obj ect ed gene r al l yt o the i m pos i t i on o f th e c o s ts o f

p ro s e c u tio n , b u t m a d e n o o bje c tio n to th e p ro p o s e d a m o u n t. O ut s i de of the B ookerc o n tex t, a c o u rt m a yre ly“ o n . . . u n o bjec ted -to fa c ts- 9-

for. . . s ent enci ng purpos es . ” Uni t ed Stat es v. Wol f e, 435 F. 3d 1289, 1299 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ). T hi s pr act i ce i s cons i s t entw i th Fed. R . C r i m . P. 32( i ) ( 3) ( A ) , w hi ch obl i ges a defendant“t o poi ntoutfac tual i nacc ur aci es i ncl uded i n the PSR . A nd r equi r i ng a defendantt o chal l enge a nyfac tual i nacc ur aci es i n the PSR befor e ordur i ng s ent enci ng perm i t s t he di s t r i ctcour tt o addr es s thos e obj ect i ons ata t i m e and pl ace w hen the di s t r i ctcour ti s abl e t o r es ol ve thos e cha l l enges . ” Id. M or eover , M r . R obbi ns w as gi ven a s econd opportuni tyt o m ake a n appr opr i at e obj ect i on. A tt he s ent enci ng hear i ng, the di s tr i ctcour tm ade f i ndi ngs o f fa c t, i n c lu d in g a d e ter m in a tio n th a t co sts o f p ro se c u tio n a m o u n ted to $11, 430. 66. I tt hen s peci fi cal l yas ked i f ther e w er e “[ a] nyobj ect i ons t o the C our t ’ s fi ndi ngs of fa ctt hathaven’ tal r eadybeen di s cus s ed. ” R . , V ol . X I I at69. M r. R o b b in s ’ c o u n s e l r e s p o n d e d th a t h e h a d n o f u rt h e r o bje c tio n s . C ont r aryt o M r . R obbi ns ’ cont ent i ons , an obj ect i on t o the i m pos i t i on of pr os ecut i on cos t s i s anal yt i cal l ydi s t i nctfr om an obj ect i on t o the ca l cul at i on of t he amountof thos e cos t s . B eca us e M r . R obbi ns di d notm ake a pr operobj ect i on a t th e a p p ro p ri a te tim e , w e re v ie w th e c o s ts is s u e fo r p la in e rr o r. United S tates v. Trax l er , N o s . 0 5 -2 3 7 0 , 0 6 -2 1 7 9 , 2 0 0 7 W L 6 1 4 2 6 6 , * 6 (1 0 th C ir . M a r. 1 , 2 0 0 7 ). A nd w e fi nd no s uch err ori n t he di s tr i ctcour t ’ s adopt i on of the amountof p ro s e c u tio n c o s ts p ro p o s e d in th e P S R .- 10-

T h e j u d g me n to f

t h e d i s t r i c tc o u r ti s AF F I RMED . E n tered fo r th e C o u rt M onr oe G . M cK ay C i r cui tJ udge