FI LED U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT D e c e m be r 6, 2006 T HOM AS K. KAHN CL E RK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 06- 11882 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C . D ocketN o. 05 -000 29 -C R -1-2 U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , P la in tif f - A p p e lle e , v ersu s P E T E R G . A R C H I B A L D , D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lla n t.

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e S o u th e rn D is tr ic t o f G e o r g ia

_________________________ ( D e c e m b e r 6, 2006) B efo re B IR C H , B L A C K an d B A R K E T T , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: A ppe l l a ntP e t e rG . A r c hi ba l d ( “ A r c hi ba l d” ) c ha l l e nge s hi s c onvi c t i ons f or2

k n o w i n g l y a n d f

r a u d u l e n t l y c o n c e a l i n g th e a s s e t s o f ab a n k ru p t c y e s t a t e , 1 8 U . S. C. § 152( 1) , a nd know i ngl y a nd f r a udul e nt l y m a ki ng af

a l s e oa th i n r e l a t i on t o a ba nkrupt c y c a s e , 18 U . S . C . § 152( 2) . A r c hi ba l d r a i s e s anum be rof i s s ue s on ap p e a l. F ir s t, h e c h a lle n g e s th e s u f f ic ie n c y o f

th e c r im in a l in d ic tm e n t p u r s u a n t to w h ic h h e w a s c h a r g e d . A r c h ib a ld a ls o a r g u e s th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t e rr e d in a d m ittin g c e r ta in e v id e n c e a g a in s t h im a t tr ia l a n d th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t e rr e d in c a l c ul a t i ng the a m ountof the m one t a ry l os s f

orpurpos e s of

the S e nt e nc i ng G ui del i nes. F i nal l y, he cont ends thatthe evi dence pres ent ed attri al w as in s u f f ic ie n t to s u s ta in h is c o n v ic tio n s . W e A F F I R M . I . B AC KG RO UN D A rc hi bal d and hi s w i fe ow ned al l of the st ock i n R oo st er ’ s B arnyar d, Inc. ( “ R oos t e r ’ s ” ) , ac l os e l y he l d c orpor a t i on ope r a t i ng a s a n a dul te nt e r t a i nm e ntc l ub in A tla n ta , G e o r g ia . A lth o u g h R o o s te r ’s w a s av iab le b u s in e s s , A r c h ib a ld a n d h is w i f e ha d m i ni m a l i nvol ve m e nti n the da y - t o- da y m a na ge m e ntof the c l ub. T he c oupl e r e s i de d i n S t . S i m on’ s I s l a nd, G e or gi aa nd r e c e i ve d r e gul a ri nc om e f r om the c lu b ’s o p e r a tio n s . I n a d d itio n to h is o w n e r s h ip in te r e s t in R o o s te r ’s , A r c h ib a ld ow ned res t aura nt s i n St . S i m on ’ s a nd Je kyl l Is l and, G eor gi a, and com m er ci al prop erty i n G l ynn C ou nty, G eor gi a. D ue t o fi nanci al di f

fi cul t i es , i n D ec em ber 200 3 A rc hi bal d and hi s w i feChapter 13 of the Code create s a re org anization mechanism for individual debtors, a nd 1 permits them to repa

y their outstandingdebts–either in f ull, or on a pro rata basis–over a period of time. Unlike Chapter

7, in which the debtor ’s property is subject to a complete liquidation, Cha pter 1 3 p ermitsa

debto r to repa

y e ith er s omeor

all o f his debtsba se d o n th emonthly pay ment scheduleapprove d by the bankr uptcy court. To beelig ible for Chapter 13 protec tion, however, the individual’s debts listed on the bankr uptcy petition mustag greg ate to less than a cer tain dollar amount. See 11 U .S.C. § 109(e). I f the individual’s debts excee d the dollar amount set forth in § 109(e ), the individual will not be elig ible for reorg anization under Chapter 13 and must seek a

nother for m of bankruptcy

protec tion. 3 j oi nt l y f i l ed a V ol un t ary B ankrup t cyP et i t i on w i th the U ni t ed St at es B ankrup t cy C our tf orthe S outhe rn D i s tr i c tof G e or gi a . T he A r c hi ba l ds s oughtpr ot e c t i on p u r s u a n t to C h ap te r1 3 o f th e B a n k ru p tc y C o d e ( “th e C o d e ” ) . I n c o n n e c tio n w ith 1 S c h e d u le B o f

th e irp e titio n , th e A r c h ib a ld s w e r e r e q u ir e d to ite m iz e a ll o f th e ir a s s e t s , i nc l udi ng the va l ue of the i ri nt e r e s ti n a ny s ha r e s of s t oc k, a nd t o pr ovi de the m arketval ue for e ac h ass etl i st ed. T he A rc hi bal ds l i st ed R oo st er ’ s a s a n ass et on the S c he dul e a nd i ndi c a t e d tha tthe c urr e ntm a rke tva l ue of the i ri nt e r e s ti n the c om pa ny w a s $2, 000. S ub se qu entt o the bank rupt cyfi l i ng , C oast al B ank o f G eor gi a ( “ C oast al B a n k ” ) , o n e o f

th e A r c h ib a ld s ’ s e c u r e d c r e d ito r s , f ile d w ith th e b a n k ru p tc y c o u r t a m ot i on t o d i sm i ss the bank rupt cypet i t i on . C oast al B ank ar gu ed thatthe t ot al a m ountof

the A r c hi ba l ds ’ de bte xc e e de d the a m ounts e tf or th i n s e c t i on 109( e ) of th e C o d e , a n d th a t th e r e f o r e th e c o u p le w a s in e lig ib le f o rC h ap te r1 3 p r o te c tio n . C oast al B ank al so argu ed thatthe A rc hi bal ds kn ew thata C hapt er13 fi l i ng w as i napp ropri at e bas ed on thei r c i rc um st ance s, and thatthey had fi l ed for bankrup t cy4

w i th b ad fa i th. A cc ordi ng l y, C oast al B ank asked thatthe pet i t i on be di sm i ss ed w ith p r e ju d ic e . T he ba nkrupt c y c our the l d ahe a r i ng on the m ot i on i n J a nua ry 2004 a nd A r c h ib a ld te s tif

ie d in s u p p o r t o f

h is p e titio n . D u r in g c r o s s - e x a m in a tio n , A r c h ib a ld s ta te d th a t h e a n d h is w if e w e r e th e s o le o w n e r s o f 1 0 0 % o f th e s to c k o f

R o o s te r ’s . H e then st at ed thatthe com pany w as w orth abo utfour m i l l i on do l l ar s. W hen A r c h ib a ld w a s a s k e d w h y h e lis te d th e m a rk e t v a lu e o f R o o s te r ’s a s $ 2 ,0 0 0 o n h is ba nkrupt c y pe t i t i on–w he n the c om pa ny ha d z e r o de bta nd ava l ue of a r ound $4 m illio n – A r c h ib a ld f

ir s t te s tif ie d th a t $ 2 ,0 0 0 w a s th e a m o u n t th a t h e o r ig in a lly i nv es t ed i n the bu si ness . W hen further queri ed by the court , A rc hi bal d st at ed that he had l i st ed the val ue at$2 , 00 0 b ec ause thatw as the val ue of “ the l as tl i ce nse” tha tthe c l ub obt a i ne d i n D e ka l b C ounty . E xh. 1 1 a t23. A f t e ra ga i n c onf

i rm i ng on c r os s - e xa m i na t i on tha tthe a c tua l va l ue of R oos t e r ’ s w a s c l os e rt o $4 m i l l i on, the c our tdi s m i s s e d the A r c hi ba l ds ’ C hapt e r13 pe t i t i on. F i ndi ng tha tthe A r c hi ba l ds had abu se d the bank rupt cyproces s, the courtdi sm i ss ed the pet i t i on w i th p re j ud i ce . A f t e rthe he a r i ng, the ba nkrupt c y trus t e e r e f e rr e d the A r c hi ba l ds ’ c a s e t o the F eder al B ureau o f I nv es t i gat i on (F B I) , w hi ch began i nv es t i gat i ng the di sc re pancy be tw e e n the $2, 000 va l ua t i on of R oos t e r ’ s on the A r c hi ba l ds ’ C hapt e r13 f i l i ng a nd A rc hi bal d’ s s ub se qu entt es t i m on y a tthe bank rupt cyhear i ng . P ursuantt o that5

i nv es t i gat i on , F B I a gentM ark A l i g i nt ervi ew ed A rc hi bal d and hi s w i fe . W hen A gentA l i g asked A rc hi bal d abo utthe $2 , 00 0 v al uat i on l i st ed on the bank rupt cy p e titio n , A r c h ib a ld f

ir s t c la im e d th a t h e w a s in s tru c te d b y af r ie n d in A tla n tato pl a c e tha tva l ua t i on on the bus i ne s s . L a t e ri n the i nt e rvi e w A r c hi ba l d s t a t e d tha the d id n o t k n o w w h y th e $ 2 ,0 0 0 f ig u r e ap p e a r e d in h is b a n k ru p tc y f ilin g , b u t th a t h is b a n k ru p tc y c o u n s e l h a d in s tru c te d h im to a tta c h th a t v a lu e to th e c lu b . F in a lly, A r c hi ba l d i ndi c a t e d tha the va l ue d R oos t e r ’ s a t$2, 000 be c a us e tha tw a s the a m ounttha the ha d i ni t i a l l y i nve s t e d i n the c om pa ny . D e s pi t e the s e di f f e r i ng s t or i e s c onc e rni ng the $2, 000 va l ua t i on, A r c hi ba l d r e i t e r a t e d t o the f e de r a l a ge nt hi s bel i ef thatthe ac tual “ m arketval ue of the prop erty w as four m i l l i on do l l ar s. ” R 5 a t61. O n 1 4 Ju l y 2 0 0 5 a fed eral g ran d j u ry i ssu ed a tw o -co u n ti n d i ctm en tag ai n st A r c hi ba l d a nd hi s w i f

e , c ha r gi ng the m w i th know i ngl ya nd f r a udul e nt l y c onc e a l i ng p r o p e r ty b e lo n g in g to th e b a n k ru p tc y e s ta te , 1 8 U .S .C . § 1 5 2 ( 1 ) , a n d k n o w in g ly a nd f r a udul e nt l y m a ki ng af

a l s e oa th i n c onne c t i on w i th aba nkrupt c y c a s e , 18 U . S . C . § 1 52 (2)–nam el y, the fa i l ure t o d i sc l ose the true val ue of R oo st er ’ s. A tri al by j ury w as hel d i n N ov em ber 200 5. B ec ause the evi dence pres ent ed attri al s how e d tha tA r c hi ba l d’ s w i f e ha d no i nvol ve m e nti n e i the rthe pr e pa r a t i on of the C hapt er13 bank rupt cyno r i n the pu t at i ve val uat i on of R oo st er ’ s, A rc hi bal d’ s w i fe6

m ov ed for aj ud gm entof ac qu i tt al pri or t o j ury del i bera t i on s, and h erm ot i on w as g r a n te d . T h e ju ry f

o u n d A r c h ib a ld g u ilty o f b o th c o u n ts s e t f

o r th in th e in d ic tm e n t. T he prob at i on of

fi ce r pre pare d a pre- se nt ence i nv es t i gat i on re po rt(P S I) , r e c om m e ndi ng aba s e of f e ns e l e ve l of

6 be c a us e A r c hi ba l d’ s c r i m e i nvol ve d “ f r a ud a nd de c e i t . ” S e e U . S . S . G. § 2B 1. 1. T he P S I a l s o s t a t e d tha tthe l os s i nt e nde d by A r c h ib a ld ’s o f

f e n s e h a d b e e n $ 4 ,0 0 0 ,0 0 0 , th e v a lu e o f th e c o n c e a le d a s s e t. A cc ordi ng l y, the prob at i on of fi ce r r ec om m ended an 1 8-l evel enhancem entbase d o n th e lo s s a m o u n t b e in g g r e a te rth a n $ 2 ,5 0 0 ,0 0 0 . S e e U .S .S .G. § 2 B 1 .1 ( b ) ( 1 ) ( J ) . T he pr oba t i on of

f i c e rf ur the rr e c om m e nde d atw o- l e ve l e nha nc e m e ntbe c a us e the o f f e n s e in v o lv e df

r a u d u le n t a c tio n d u r in g ab a n k ru p tc y p r o c e e d in g , s e e U .S .S .G. § 2 B 1. 1(b)(8)(B), and a tw o-l evel enhancem entfor obstruct i on of j ust i ce , se e U .S .S .G. § 3 C 1 .1 , r e s u ltin g in ato ta l o f f e n s e le v e l o f

2 8 . A tthe s e nt e nc i ng he a r i ng, the gove rnm e ntm odi f i e d i t s pos i t i on c onc e rni ng the t ot a l a m ountof

l os s i nt e nde d by A r c hi ba l d’ s c onduc t . S pe c i f i c a l l y, the gove rnm e ntl ow e r e d i t s e s t i m a t e of the t ot a l m one t a ry l os s , a gr e e i ng tha tthe i nt e nde d l os s a m ounts houl d be c appe d a tthe t ot a l de bttha tA r c hi ba l d c l a i m e d on hi s bankrup t cypet i t i on – i n thi s c as e, betw ee n “ 1. 6 and 1. 9 m i l l i on do l l ar s. ” R 7 at 56. A c c or di ngl y, the gove rnm e ntr e c om m e nde d tha tA r c hi ba l d’ s s e nt e nc e be e nha nc e d by onl y 16 l e ve l s pur s ua ntt o U . S . S . G. § 2B 1. 1( b) ( 1) ( I ) , r a the rtha n the7

1 8 - le v e l e n h a n c e m e n t o r ig in a lly in d ic a te d in th e P S I b a s e d o n U .S .S .G. § 2B 1. 1(b)(1)(J ). T he di s tr i c tc our ta gr e e d w i th the gove rnm e nt ’ s r e vi s e d s e nt e nc i ng ca l cul at i on . In l i gh tof a bas e l evel of 6, a 16-l evel enhancem entbase d u po n an in te n d e d lo s s o f

m o r e th a t $ 1 ,0 0 0 ,0 0 0 , a n d th e a d d itio n a l e n h a n c e m e n ts re com m ended i n the P S I, the courtconcl ud ed thatA rc hi bal d’ s t ot al of fe nse l evel w as 26 . A rc hi bal d’ s new of fe nse l evel , w i th a cr i m i nal hi st ory c at egory of I , re sul t ed i n a gu i del i nes r ange of 63 -78 m on ths of i m pri sonm ent . T he di stri ctcourt s e nt e nc e d A r c hi ba l d t o 60 m onths of i m pr i s onm e ntf

orC ountO ne of

the i ndi c tm e nt , a nd 18 m onths f orC ountTw o, t o be s e rve d c onc urr e nt l y, r e s ul t i ng i n a t ot a l pr i s on s e nt e nc e of

60 m onths . T hi s appe a l f ol l ow e d. I I . DI S CUS S I ON A . S uf f i c i e nc y of

the I ndi c tm e nt A r c hi ba l d’ s f

i r s tc ont e nt i on on appe a l c onc e rns the l e ga l s uf f i c i e nc y of

the c r i m i na l i ndi c tm e ntpur s ua ntt o w hi c h he w a s c ha r ge d. A r c hi ba l d a r gue s tha tthe l angu age of the i nd i ctm ent , on i t s f ac e, fa i l s t o al l ege acr i m i nal of fe nse. A r c hi ba l d’ s c ouns e l f

i r s tr a i s e d thi s i s s ue i n am ot i on t o di s m i s s pur s ua ntt o F e d. R . C ri m . P . 12 (b)( 3), bu tthe di stri ctcourtdeni ed thatm ot i on . A rc hi bal d’ s c ou nsel a ga i n c ha l l e nge d the i ndi c tm e nta tthe c onc l us i on of the di r e c te xa m i na t i on of the8

p r o s e c u tio n ’s f

ir s t w itn e s s , th is tim e v iaa n o r a l m o tio n f o raju d g m e n t o f

a c q u itta l, w h ich th e d istrict co u rt also d en ied . A rc h ib ald n o w ap p ea ls th e d istrict co u rt’s de ni a l of thos e m ot i ons , a nd a r gue s tha tthe i ndi c tm e nti s l e ga l l y i ns uf f i c i e nt . T he qu es t i on of “ w hether a n i nd i ctm entsuf fi ci ent l y a l l eges a s t atut ori l y prosc ri bed of f e ns e i s aque s t i on of

l a w . ” R odr i gue z v . R i t c he y , 556 F . 2d 1 185, 1 191 n. 22 (5th C i r . 19 77 ), ce rt . deni ed, 43 4 U . S . 10 47 , 98 S . C t . 89 4 (19 78 ). We r evi ew q u e s t i o n s o f

l a w de n o v o . U n ite d S ta te s v . S h e n b e r g , 8 9 F .3 d 1 4 6 1 , 1 4 7 8 ( 1 1 th C i r . 19 96 ) ( ci t at i on s om i tt ed). T h e p u rp o s e o f

ac r im in a l in d ic tm e n t is tw o - f o ld . F ir s t, th e in d ic tm e n t “p u ts the de f e nda nton not i c e of

the na tur e a nd c a us e of the a c c us a t i on a s r e qui r e d by the S i xth A m e ndm e ntof

the C ons t i tut i on. ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v . F e rn, 155 F . 3d 1318, 1 3 2 5 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 8 ) ( c ita tio n a n d in te rn a l q u o ta tio n s o m itte d ) . “S e c o n d , it ful fi l l s the F i fth A m endm ent ’ s i nd i ctm entre qu i re m ent , ensuri ng thata gra nd j ury on l y r eturn an i nd i ctm entw hen i tfi nd s probabl e c ause t o sup po rtal l the neces sa ry e l e m e n t s o f

th e c r i m e . ” I d . ( c i t a t i o n a n d i n t e rn a l q u o t a t i o n s o m i tt e d ) . “ An i nd i ctm enti s s uf

fi ci enti f i t : (1) pre se nt s the es se nt i al el em ent s of the charged of f e ns e , ( 2) not i f

i e s the a c c us e d of

the c ha r ge s t o be de f

e nde d a ga i ns t , a nd ( 3) en ab l es th e accu sed t o rel y u p o n a j u d g m en tu n d er th e i n d i ctm en tas a b ar ag ai n st do ub l e j eopardy for any subsequentprosec ut i on for the sa m e of fe nse. ” U ni t ed9

S t a t e s v . S t e e l e , 147 F . 3d 1316, 1320 ( 1 1th C i r . 1998) ( e n ba nc ) ( c i t a t i on a nd i nt ernal qu ot at i on s om i tt ed). We have al so st at ed that“ prac t i ca l , ra ther than t ech n i cal , co n si d erat i o n s g o v ern th e v al i d i ty o f an i n d i ctm en t . ” U n i t ed St at es v . H o o sh m an d , 9 3 1 F . 2 d 7 2 5 , 7 3 5 (1 1 th C i r . 1 9 9 1 ) (ci t at i o n o m i tt ed ). T h ati s,

“ [m ] i no r def

i ci enci es thatdo no tprej ud i ce the defendantw i l l no tprom ptthi s C ou rt t o r e v e r s e ac o n v i c t i o n . ” U n i t e d S t a t e s v . C h i l c o t e , 7 2 4 F . 2 d 1 4 9 8 , 1 5 0 5 ( 1 1 th C i r. 19 84 ) ( ci t at i on s om i tt ed). T he i ndi c tm e nti s s ue d i n A r c hi ba l d’ s c a s e c ont a i ns tw o c ount s . C ountO ne al l eges thatA rc hi bal d and hi s w i fe

in c o n n e c tio n w ith th e a f o r e m e n tio n e d B a n k ru p tc y P e titio n , d id know i ngl y a nd f

r a udul e nt l y c onc e a l f

r om c r e di t or s orthe U ni t e d S t a t e s T rus t e e , pr ope r ty be l ongi ng t o the e s t a t e of the [ D e f e nda nt s ] . . . tha tbe i ng the a s s e t s of R oos t e r [ ’ ] s B a rny a r d, In c. . . . i n v io lati o n o f [ 1 8 U .S .C . § 1 5 2 (1 )]. R 1-1 at1. C ou ntTw o si m i l ar l y a l l eges thatA rc hi bal d and hi s w i fe

i n c onne c t i on w i th the a f or e m e nt i one d B a nkrupt c y P e t i t i on u n d er T i t l e 1 1 , d i d k n o w i n g l y an d frau d u l en t l y m ak e a fal se oa th ora c c ountby s ubs t a nt i a l l y unde rva l ui ng the a s s e t s of R o o s te r [ ’]s B a rn y a r d , I n c . . . . in v io la tio n o f [ 1 8 U .S .C . § 1 5 2 (2 )]. I d. a t2. A r c hi ba l d’ s c ouns e l c orr e c t l y not e s tha ti n or de rf orA r c hi ba l d t o ha ve vi ol at ed 18 U . S . C . § 1 52 , he w ou l d h ave had t o h ave kno w i ng l y c on ce al ed

“ pr ope r ty be l ongi ng t o the [ ba nkrupt c y e s t a t e ] ” f r om e i the rhi s c r e di t or s orthe10

trus t e e i n ba nkrupt c y . S e e 18 U . S . C . § 152( 1) . “ P r ope r ty ” i s de f i ne d i n the C ode as i ncl ud i ng “ al l l egal or equi t abl e i nt er es t s of the debt or . ” 1 1 U . S . C . § 5 41 (a )( 1). A r c hi ba l d’ s appe a l hi nge s on the l a tt e rl a ngua ge of C ount s O ne a nd Tw o– spec i fi ca l l y the al l egat i on thatA rc hi bal d’ s bankrup t cypet i t i on conceal ed

“ th e a s s e t s o f

R o o s t e r [ ’ ] s B a rn y a r d , I n c . ” R 1 - 1 a t1 , 2 ( e m p h a s i s a d d e d ) . As A r c h ib a ld ’s c o u n s e l p o in ts o u t, as h a r e h o ld e rin ac o rp o r a tio n w o u ld b e r e q u ir e d to di s c l os e hi s i nt e r e s ti n ac orpor a t i on ( r e pr e s e nt e d by the s ha r e s tha the ow ne d) i n a bank rupt cypet i t i on , bu the w ou l d n otbe re qu i re d t o d i sc l ose “ the as se t s” of that corporat i on , such as , i n the ca se of R oo st er ’ s, the t abl es , chai rs , and m usi ca l e q u ip m e n t o w n e d b y th e c lu b . I d . I n o th e rw o r d s , A r c h ib a ld c o n te n d s th a t w h ile he w as re qu i re d t o d i sc l ose the val ue of hi s ow ners hi p i nt er es ti n R oo st er ’ s, he w as n o t r e q u ir e d to d is c lo s e th e “a s s e ts o f th a t c o rp o r a tio n .” R 4 a t 7 - 8 . A c c o r d in g ly, A r c hi ba l d a s s e r t s tha tthe i ndi c tm e ntf a i l s t o a l l e ge ac r i m i na l of f e ns e , s i nc e he c oul d a dm i tt o c onc e a l i ng the “ a s s e t s ” of R oos t e r ’ s on hi s ba nkrupt c y pe t i t i on a nd s t i l l notbe gui l ty of

ac r i m e . I n s uppor tof

thi s a r gum e nt , A r c hi ba l d r e l i e s on the d ef in it io n o f “p ro p er ty” s et fo rth in th e C o d e, as w ell as th e S ev en th C ircu it ’s opi ni on i n F ow l e rv . S ha de l , w he r e the c our tm a de c l e a rtha tade bt or ’ s s t oc k i n a corporat i on i s vi ew ed as “ prop erty” for purpo se s of the bank rupt cyes t at e, bu tthat the se para t e a ss et s of the corporat i on ar e not . 40 0 F . 3d 10 16 , 10 19 (7th C i r . 20 05 ).11

A r c hi ba l d’ s a r gum e nti s c r e a t i ve , butunpe r s ua s i ve ne ve r the l e s s . T he in d ic tm e n t a lle g e s b o th th e e le m e n ts o f th e ap p lic ab le o f

f e n s e s a n d th e c r im e s w ith w hi c h A r c hi ba l d w a s be i ng c ha r ge d. S e e S t e e l e , 147 F . 3d a t1320 ( r e i t e r a t i ng the r e qui r e m e nt s f

ora n i ndi c tm e ntt o be l e ga l l y s uf f i c i e nt ) . I n f

a c t , the i ndi c tm e nt c l e a r l y s t a t e s tha tA r c hi ba l d di d “ know i ngl y a nd f r a udul e nt l y c onc e a l f

r om cr edi t ors . . . prop erty bel on gi ng t o the es t at e” i n v i ol at i on of 18 U . S . C . § 1 52 (1), a n d th a t h e d id “k n o w in g ly a n d f r a u d u le n tly m a k e af

a ls e o a th o ra c c o u n t” in c o n n e c tio n w ith h is b a n k ru p tc y, in v io la tio n o f 1 8 U .S .C . § 1 5 2 ( 2 ) . R 1 - 1 a t 1 , 2 . W h ile th e in d ic tm e n t g o e s o n to s ta te , p e rh ap s in a r tf u lly , th a t th e p r o p e r ty c onc e a l e d f

r om the ba nkrupt c y pe t i t i on c ons i s t e d of the “ a s s e t s ” of

R oos t e r ’ s , a nd w hi l e i tw ou l d h ave been pref er abl e t o i dent i fythe conceal ed prop erty a s A r c hi ba l d’ s i nt e r e s ti n R oos t e r ’ s r a the rtha n a s R oos t e r ’ s a s s e t s , w e c a nnot c onc l ude tha tthe i ndi c tm e ntf a i l e d t o gi ve A r c hi ba l d a de qua t e not i c e of the c h a r g e s th a tw e r e p e n d i n g a g a i n s th i m. N o tab ly, A r c h ib a ld d o e s n o t c o n te n d th a t th e in d ic tm e n t f a ile d to n o tif

y h im o f th e c h a r g e s a g a in s t h im ; n o rc o u ld h e s o c la im , a s th e in d ic tm e n t s p e c if ic a lly a n d e x p r e s s ly r e f

e r s to th e s ta tu to ry p r o v is io n s o n w h ic h th e c h a r g e s w e r e b a s e d . S e e F e rn, 155 F . 3d a t1325. R a the r, A r c hi ba l d’ s a r gum e nti s e s s e nt i a l l y tha tthe i nd i ctm enti s i nacc urat e bec ause A rc hi bal d d i d n otow n the “ prop erty” thatw as12

a lle g e d ly o b s c u r e d ; h is c lo s e ly - h e ld c o rp o r a tio n d id . B u t a n in d ic tm e n t s im p ly m us ta l l e ge “ e nough f

a c tua l de t a i l t o appr i s e [ the de f e nda nt ] of

the c onduc tf

or w h ic h h e w o u ld b e . . . tr ie d .” U n ite d S ta te s v . G r a y , 2 6 0 F .3 d 1 2 6 7 , 1 2 8 3 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 1 ) . T h e in d ic tm e n t in th is c a s e s a tis f ie s th a t th r e s h o ld ; it n o t o n ly sp eci fi cal l y referen ces A rch i b al d ’ s 3 0 D ecem b er 2 0 0 3 b an k ru p t cy fi l i n g , b u ti tal so c l e a r l y s e t s f

or th the a l l e ga t i ons tha tthe A r c hi ba l ds c onc e a l e d “ pr ope r ty be l ongi ng to th e [ b a n k ru p tc y ] e s ta te ” f r o m th a t p e titio n a n d th a t th e y “m a [ d e ] a f a ls e o a th ” in c onne c t i on w i th tha tpe t i t i on. R 1- 1 a t1, 2. T he s ubs e que ntr e f e r e nc e i n the i ndi c tm e nt , t o the “ a s s e t s ” of the c orpor a t i on, w hi l e s om e w ha tc a r e l e s s , i s not e n o u g h to in v a lid a te th e in d ic tm e n t, w h e r e th e r e s t o f th e d o c u m e n t is q u ite s pe c i f i c a nd e xpr e s s l y s e t s outthe c ha r ge s a l l e ge d a ga i ns tA r c hi ba l d. S e e F e rn, 1 5 5 F .3 d 1 3 2 6 n . 1 2 (p o in ti n g o u t “ th e ten sio n b etw ee n [th e d ef en d an t] ’s s u g g e s tio n th a t th e ab s e n c e o f s o m e e x p lic it la n g u a g e in th e in d ic tm e n t is f a ta l, w hi l e the pres ence of other e xp l i ci tl angu age i s of no m om ent ”) . A s the di stri ct courtno t ed, the i nd i ctm entm i gh thave l ac ked the preci se “ t erm i no l og y” l at er a r g u e d f o rb y A r c h ib a ld , b u t, n e v e r th e le s s , “th e e s s e n c e o f it [ w a s ] th e r e .” I d . T hi s c on cl usi on w as prop er, es peci al l y gi ven o ur re peat ed adm on i t i on that

“ prac t i ca l , ra ther than t ec hn i ca l , consi dera t i on s gov ern the val i di ty of a nAs a final matter, wenote that Archibald’s counse l could have move d for a bill of 2 particula rs to clarify

the alleg ations set forth in the indictment, if he be lieved such a clarification was ne cessa

ry to prepa re his def ense. See , e.g ., United States v. Sharpe, 438 F .3d 1257, 1263 n. 3 (11th Cir. 2006) (“ To the extent the defendants sug g est that more detail was re quired in the indictment, we disagree . It is not necessar y for a n indictment . . . to alleg e in detail the f actual proof that will be relied upon to support the cha rg es. That infor

mation, if essential to the defense, ca

n be obtained by

a motion for a bill of pa

rticulars . . .” ) (c itation and internal quotations omitted). No such clarification wa s ever sought; rather, Archibald’s counsel aimed simply to dismi ss the indictment based on a minor semantic shortcoming . 13 i ndi c tm e nt . ” H oos hm a nd, 931 F . 2d a t735 ( c i t a t i on om i tt e d) . A r c hi ba l d’ s m ot i on 2 t o di s m i s s pur s ua ntt o F e d. R . C r i m . P . 12( b) ( 3) w a s pr ope r l y de ni e d. B . P r i orA c tE vi de nc e A dm i tt e d U nde rF e de r a l R ul e of E vi de nc e 404( b) A r c h ib a ld a r g u e s th a t th e c o u r t e rr e d in p e rm ittin g th e g o v e rn m e n t to a d m it in to e v id e n c e th e f

a c ts s u rr o u n d in g o n e o f A r c h ib a ld ’s e a r lie rb a n k ru p tc y f ilin g s . A t tr ia l, th e b u lk o f

A r c h ib a ld ’s d e f

e n s e w a s th a t h e w a s u n f a m ilia rw ith b a n k ru p tc y la w in g e n e r a l a n d th e p r o c e s s o f f ilin g o u t ab a n k ru p tc y p e titio n in pa r t i c ul a r, a nd, a s ar e s ul t , hi s e rr one ous va l ua t i on of R oos t e r ’ s on hi s 2003 pe t i t i on w a s as i m pl e m i s t a ke . D ur i ng the pr os e c ut i on’ s c r os s - e xa m i na t i on of A r c hi ba l d, the gove rnm e nts oughtt o c ha l l e nge A r c hi ba l d’ s c l a i m s of na i ve t e  ́ by in tr o d u c in g th e f

a c ts s u rr o u n d in g h is e a r lie r1 9 9 1 b a n k ru p tc y f ilin g , in w h ic h it ha d be e n a l l e ge d by ac r e di t ortha tA r c hi ba l d i nt e nt i ona l l y ha d f a i l e d t o l i s tthe va l ue of R oos t e r ’ s . A ttr i a l the c our tove rrul e d A r c hi ba l d’ s obj e c t i on t o the a d m is s io n o f

th is e v id e n c e . A r c h ib a ld n o w a r g u e s th a t th e a d m is s io n o f th is e vi de nc e vi ol a t e d R ul e 404( b) of the F e de r a l R ul e s of

E vi de nc e , w hi c h pe rm i t s the14

ad m i ssi o n o f p ri o r b ad act s o n l y u n d er certai n n arro w ci rcu m st an ces. We r e vi e w adi s tr i c tc our t ’ s a dm i s s i on of pr i orba d a c t s unde rR ul e 404( b) of the F eder al R ul es of E vi dence for abu se of di sc re t i on . U ni t ed St at es v . R am i re z, 426 F . 3d 1344, 1354 ( 1 1th C i r . 2005) ( pe rc ur i a m ) ( c i t a t i on om i tt e d) . R ul e 404( b) o f th e F e d e r a l R u le s o f

E v id e n c e p r o v id e s th a t [ e ]v id e n c e o f

o th e rc r im e s , w r o n g s , o ra c ts is n o t a d m is s ib le to p r o v e th e c h a r a c te ro f

ap e r s o n in o r d e rto s h o w a c tio n in conform i ty there w i th. Itm ay, ho w ever, be adm i ss i bl e f or other p u rp o s e s , s u c h a s p r o o f o f m o tiv e , o p p o r tu n ity, in te n t, pr e pa r a t i on, pl a n, know l e dge , i de nt i ty, orabs e nc e of m i s t a ke or a c c id e n t . . . F e d R . E v . 4 0 4 ( b ) . We h a v e in d ic a te d th a t, in o r d e rf o rs u c h p r io ra c t e v id e n c e to be pr ope r l y a dm i tt e d unde rR ul e 404( b) , thr e e s t e ps a r e ne e de d. “ F i r s t , the e vi de nc e m us tbe r e l e va ntt o a n i s s ue othe rtha n the de f e nda nt ’ s c ha r a c t e r . S e c ond, th e r e m u s t b e s u f

f ic ie n t p r o o f

th a t th e d e f

e n d a n t c o m m itte d th e e x tr in s ic a c t. T h ir d , th e e v id e n c e m u s t s u rv iv e th e b a la n c in g te s t o f p r e s c r ib e d b yF e d e r a l R u le o f E v id e n c e 4 0 3 .” U n ite d S ta te s v . M ills , 1 3 8 F .3 d 9 2 8 , 9 3 5 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 8 ) . T ha ti s , the di s tr i c tc our tm us tf i nd tha tthe pr oba t i ve va l ue of the e vi de nc e i s not outw e i ghe d by the da nge rof unf a i rpr e j udi c e , c onf

us i on of the i s s ue s , or m is le a d in g th e ju ry . S e e F e d . R . E v . 4 0 3 . In th is ca se , th e g o v er n m en t so u g h t t o in tro d u ce ev id en ce o f A rc h ib ald ’s 1 9 9 1 b a n k ru p tc y f

ilin g to r e f

u te A r c h ib a ld ’s a s s e r tio n th a t h e w a s u n f a m ilia rw ithWe re je c t th eg ov ernment’ s c ontenti on that Archib ald’ s c ouns e l f aile d toa de qu ate ly 3 preserve this objection at trial. On the contra ry, the re cord makes cle ar that Archibald’s counsel’s obje ction was ba sed on the lack of adva nced noticethat is require d under F ed R. Ev. 404(b). Archibald’s attorney repe atedly

stated at trial that hehad never seen the evidenc e concerningthe ea

rlier 1991 petition before. R5 at 199, 205. His prote stations beforethe cour t sufficiently

preserved a

Rule 404(b) objec tion for purposes of this appeal. 15 bank rupt cyl aw and the prop erprepara t i on of a bankrup t cypet i t i on . T he evi dence i ntrodu ce d attri al no ton l y s ho w ed thatA rc hi bal d h ad fi l ed for bankrup t cy previ ou sl y, bu ti tal so re veal ed thatthe 19 91 pet i t i on w as conv ert ed fr om a C hapt er 13 f i l i ng t o aC hapt e r7 f

i l i ng, due t o A r c hi ba l d’ s appa r e ntf a i l ur e t o di s c l os e the v a lu e o f R o o s te r ’s o n h is 1 9 9 1 p e titio n . S u c h e v id e n c e , a lth o u g h ap r io rb a d a c t, w a s a d m is s ib le u n d e rR u le 4 0 4 ( b ) to s h o w A r c h ib a ld ’s “in te n t” to c o n c e a l h is i nt e r e s ti n R oos t e r ’ s on hi s 2003 pe t i t i on. T he e vi de nc e s urr oundi ng the 1991 p e titio n w a s n o t in tr o d u c e d to s h o w A r c h ib a ld ’s c h a r a c te ro ra c tio n in c o n f o rm ity the r e w i th, but , r a the r, t o s how tha tA r c hi ba l d w a s c apabl e of f orm ul a t i ng the i nt e nt t o k no w i ng l y a nd pu rposef ul l y c on ce al as se t s i n p ursui ng bank rupt cy p r o te c tio n – a n d to r e f

u te A r c h ib a ld ’s c la im s to th e c o n tr a ry . A r c hi ba l d f

ur the robj e c t s t o the l a c k of not i c e a f

f or de d t o hi m pr i ort o the i ntr oduc t i on of

the pr i ora c te vi de nc e . R ul e 404( b) i m pos e s anot i c e r e qui r e m e nt 3 o n th e a d m is s io n o f

p r io ra c t e v id e n c e in th e c o n te x t o f ac r im in a l tr ia l; th e ru le s t a t e s tha t , be f

or e a dm i tt i ng s uc h e vi de nc e , the pr os e c ut i on i s r e qui r e d t o “ pr ovi de re as on abl e not i ce i n adv ance of tri al , or du ri ng tri al i f the courtexcuse s pre tri al16

no t i ce on go od cause s ho w n. ” F ed. R . E v. 40 4(b). A rc hi bal d ar gu es on appeal that the gove rnm e nt ’ s f

a i l ur e t o pr ovi de a dva nc e d not i c e be f or e a dm i tt i ng the 1991 p e titio n h a d ap r e

ju d ic ia l e f

f e c t o n h is c a s e , a n d th a t th e c o u r t th e r e f o r e s h o u ld have excl ud ed i t . In previ ou s c as es w e have hel d thatthe adm i ss i on of pri or ac t e vi de nc e i n ac r i m i na l tr i a l , w i thouta ny a dva nc e d not i c e on the pa r tof the prosec ut i on , ca n b e s o p re j ud i ci al t o a defendant ’ s c as e thati tw arra nt s are vers al o f h is c o n v ic tio n . S e e , e .g ., U n ite d S ta te s v . C a rr a s c o , 3 8 1 F .3 d 1 2 3 7 , 1 2 4 1 ( 1 1 th C i r . 2004) ( pe rc ur i a m ) ( f i ndi ng tha tthe f

a i l ur e t o gi ve “ the r e qui r e d R ul e 404( b) not i c e ” t o ade f

e nda ntbe f

or e a dm i tt i ng e vi de nc e of hi s pr i ordrug de a l i ngs

“ pr e j udi c e d [ the de f

e nda nt ] ’ s abi l i ty t o de f

e nd hi m s e l f

” a nd thus w a rr a nt e d a r e v e r s a l o f

h is c o n v ic tio n ) . R ul e 404 (b), ho w ever, expres sl y perm i t s the adm i ss i on of pri or ac tevi dence, w i th o u tad v an cedn o t i ce, “ i f th e co u rtex cu ses p retri al n o t i ce o n g o o d cau se show n. ” S ee F ed. R . E v. 40 4(b). A l tho ug h w e have notful l y def i ned the cont ou rs o f th e g o o d c a u s e e x c e p tio n to R u le 4 0 4 ( b ) ’s n o tic e r e q u ir e m e n t, o u rs is te rc ir c u its ha ve he l d tha tthe good c a us e thr e s hol d i s s a t i s f i e d unde rthe F e de r a l R ul e s of E v id e n c e w h e n th e e v id e n c e is n o t d is c o v e r e d b y th e p r o s e c u tio n u n til im m e d ia te ly be f or e ordur i ng the tr i a l . S e e , e . g. , U ni t e d S t a t e s v . L ope z - G ut i e rr e z , 83 F . 3d 1235, 1241 ( 10th C i r . 1996) ( s t a t i ng tha t“ be c a us e the e vi de nc e w a s notm a deEven if wewere to find that the evidenceconcerningthe 1991 bankr uptcy petition 4 sh ould not h avebe en admitte d w ith out adv anc e d n oti c eto Archib ald, wewould nevert he le ss concludethat the admission of the evidence c onstitut ed har mless error , espec ially

beca use the direc t evidencepresented ag ainst Archibald was over whelming , even without evidence of the 1991 petition. See Chilcote, 724 F.2d at 1502 (“Although we f ound error in the admission of the evidenc e under

[Rule 404(b)], we c onclude that it is harmless bec ause other substantial evidenc e supports [the] conviction. . . . Direc t evidence. . . is sufficient to sustain the conviction without consideration of the extrinsi c ac t evidence .”). 17 a v a ilab le to th e g o v e rn m e n t u n til th e n ig h t b e f o r e tr ia l . . . th e r e w a s g o o d c a u s e to e xc us e the pr e tr i a l not i c e r e qui r e m e nt ” ) . S e e a l s o U ni t e d S t a t e s v . S c hol l , 166 F . 3d 96 4, 97 6 (9th C i r . 19 99 ) ( st at i ng thatw here the go vernm entm i st akenl y bel i eved tha ta n i nc i de ntoc c urr e d i n 1990, butdi s c ove r e d dur i ng tr i a l tha tthe i nc i de nt o c c u rr e d in 1 9 8 6 , p r io rto th e d e f e n d a n t’s c r im in a l a c ts , th e g o o d c a u s e th r e s h o ld w a s m e t, d e s p ite th e ab s e n c e o f a n y n o tic e to th e d e f

e n d a n t) . In thi s c as e, the prosecut i on st at ed thati thad n otre ce i ved the evi dence concerni ng A rc hi bal d’ s 199 1 b ankrup t cyun t i l the ni gh tbefore A rc hi bal d w as s c h e d u le d to te s tif

y . S u c h c ir c u m s ta n c e s c o n s titu te “g o o d c a u s e ” to e x c u s e R u le 4 0 4 ( b ) ’s p r e tr ia l n o tic e r e q u ir e m e n t. A c c o r d in g ly, th e d is tr ic t c o u r t d id n o t e rrin a d m ittin g th e e v id e n c e c o n c e rn in g th e 1 9 9 1 b a n k ru p tc y p e titio n u n d e rR u le 40 4(b). 4 C . A m ou ntof L oss f

or S ent enci ng P urpo se s A r c hi ba l d a r gue s tha tthe di s tr i c tc our te rr e d i n c a l c ul a t i ng the a m ountof in te n d e d lo s s f

o rp u rp o s e s o f

c a lc u la tin g h is s e n te n c e u n d e rU .S .S .G. § 2 B 1 .1 .18

A r c h ib a ld c o n te n d s th a t th e r e is n o e v id e n c e , e ith e rd ir e c t o rc ir c u m s ta n tia l, to s how tha the i nt e nde d t o c a us e al os s t o hi s c r e di t or s by c onc e a l i ng the true va l ue o f R o o s te r ’s o n h is b a n k ru p tc y p e titio n . I n a d d itio n , h e a r g u e s th a t h e in te n d e d to pa y hi s c r e di t or s i n f

ul l , r e ga r dl e s s of

w ha tva l ue he ul t i m a t e l y pl a c e d on R oos t e r ’ s , a nd tha t , the r e f or e , i tw a s i m pos s i bl e f

orhi s a c t i ons t o ha ve i nf l i c t e d a l os s upon hi s c r e di t or s . T hus he c l a i m s tha tno i nt e nde d l os s c a n be s how n f or p u rp o s e s o f

th e S e n te n c in g G u id e lin e s .

“ We r evi ew the di stri ctcourt ’ s det erm i nat i on of the am ou ntof l oss [ un der the S e nt e nc i ng G ui de l i ne s ] f orc l e a re rr or . ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v . H e rna nde z , 160 F . 3d 6 6 1 , 6 6 6 -6 7 (1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 8 ). U n d erU .S .S .G. § 2 B 1 .1 (b )( 1 ), th e d ef en d an t’ s of f e ns e l e ve l i s s ubj e c tt o e nha nc e m e nti f the l os s e xc e e de d $5, 000. T he e xt e ntof th e e n h a n c e m e n t is d e te rm in e d b y th e to ta l a m o u n t o f th e lo s s . U .S .S .G. § 2B 1. 1( b) ( 1) . W hi l e ga ugi ng the a m ountof m one t a ry l os s s om e t i m e s c a n be e a s y–s uc h a s i n s i m pl e the f tc a s e s –de t e rm i ni ng the l os s i n ba nkrupt c y f r a ud proceedi ng s c an be di f

fi cul t . F or pu rposes of the S ent enci ng G ui del i nes, the t erm

“ l oss” re fe rs t o ei ther ( 1) the ac tual l oss or ( 2) the i nt ended l oss, w hi chever num ber i s gre at er . S ee U . S . S . G. § 2 B 1. 1(b)(1) cmt . 3(A ). H er e, i ti s und i sput ed thatthere w a s n o “a c tu a l lo s s ” u p o n A r c h ib a ld ’s c r e d ito r s ; th e d is c h a r g e th a t A r c h ib a ld soug hti n C hapt er13 proceedi ng s w as never grant ed, and the bank rupt cycourt19

di s m i s s e d hi s pe t i t i on a tthe out s e t . T he i s s ue , the r e f or e , i s the pr ope rc a l c ul a t i on of the i nt ended l oss. T he i nt ended l oss i s def i ned i n the S ent enci ng G ui del i nes a s the “ pe c uni a ry ha rm tha tw a s i nt e nde d t o r e s ul tf r om the of

f e ns e , ” i nc l udi ng the “in te n d e d h a rm th a t w o u ld h a v e b e e n im p o s s ib le o ru n lik e ly to o c c u r .” I d . c m t. 3 (A )(i i ). T h e am o u n to f i n t en d ed l o ss n eed n o tb e ex act , so l o n g as i ti s a

“ r e a s onabl e e s t i m a t e . . . gi ve n the a va i l abl e i nf orm a t i on. ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v . D ol a n, 12 0 F . 3d 85 6, 87 0 (8th C i r . 19 97 ) ( ci t at i on s om i tt ed). A l though w e ha ve nots o e xpl i c i t l y he l d, othe rf e de r a l c our t s i n c a l c ul a t i ng th e lo s s in th e c o n te x t o f b a n k ru p tc y f

r a u d h a v e c o n c lu d e d th a t th e in te n d e d lo s s is de t e rm i ne d by us i ng “ e i the rthe va l ue of the a s s e t s c onc e a l e d orthe va l ue of the debt or’ s l i abi l i t i es , w hi chever i s l es s. ” I d. (e m ph as i s a dd ed). S ee al so U ni t ed S t a t e s v . E dga r , 971 F . 2d 89, 95- 96 ( 8th C i r . 1992) ( s t a t i ng tha tw he n the va l ue of th e a s s e t c o n c e a le d e x c e e d s th e to ta l a m o u n t o f th e d e b t, th e in te n d e d lo s s s h o u ld be l i m i t e d t o the t ot a l a m ountof the de bt ) ; c f

. U ni t e d S t a t e s v . M utuc , 349 F . 3d 93 0, 93 6 (7th C i r . 20 03 ) ( ci t at i on om i tt ed) ( st at i ng thatun der § 2B 1. 1 “ the prop er [i nt ended] l oss c al cul at i on i n b ankrup t cyfr aud cas es i s the am ou ntof the debtthat the defendantsoug htt o d i sc har ge i n b ankrup t cy ”) . In thi s c as e, the di stri ctcourt fo l l o w ed th e ap p ro ach o f th e E i g h th C i rcu i ti n D o l an an d co n cl u d ed th atth e l o ss i nt ended b y A rc hi bal d sho ul d b e c apped atthe t ot al am ou ntof the debtthat20

A rc hi bal d sou gh tt o d i sc har ge i n b ankrup t cy(betw ee n $ 1. 6 and $1 . 9 m i l l i on ), s i nc e tha ta m ountw a s l e s s tha n the a s s e tc onc e a l e d ( the $4 m i l l i on ni ght c l ub) . T he gove rnm e nta gr e e d t o thi s l os s c a l c ul a t i on f orpurpos e s of

A r c hi ba l d’ s s e nt e nc i ng, a nd i n s o doi ng the gove rnm e ntr e duc e d the s e ve r i ty of the s e nt e nc i ng r e c om m e nda t i on tha tha d be e n s e tf or th i n A r c hi ba l d’ s P S I . A c c or di ngl y, the di stri ctcourti m po se d a 16 -l evel enhancem entbase d o n an i nt ended l oss of m ore than $ 1, 00 0, 00 0, pu rs uantt o U . S . S . G. 2B 1. 1(b)(1)(I ). We c anno tconcl ud e that th i s c a l c u l a t i o n c o n s t i tu t e d c l e a re rr o r. O n ap p e a l, A r c h ib a ld a r g u e s th a t h e h a d n o in te n t to in f lic t a n y lo s s o n h is cr edi t ors, and that , i n fac t , he i nt ended t o p ayal l of hi s c re di t ors i n ful l . W hen confront ed w i th the dam agi ng fa ctthatA rc hi bal d’ s C hapt er13 pet i t i on w as a p ro r ata p la n – s u c h th a t h is c r e d ito r s ’ o u ts ta n d in g d e b ts m ig h t n o t h a v e b e e n r e p a id in f ul l –A r c hi ba l d f

a l l s ba c k on the a r gum e nttha the di d nottrul y unde r s t a nd the s ig n if ic a n c e o f th e p e titio n th a t h e w a s f ilin g . C o n s e q u e n tly, h e a r g u e s th a t th e r e is no evi dence thathe “ subj ec t i vel y i nt ended t o i nfl i ctany l oss upo n h i s c re di t ors. ” B r . o f A p p e lla n t a t 2 3 . D es pi t e these argu m ent s, the evi dence pres ent ed attri al m akes cl ea r that A r c hi ba l d’ s c onduc tc oul d ha ve r e s ul t e d i n al os s t o hi s c r e di t or s ; the f a c ttha tno s uc h l os s a c tua l l y e ns ue d i s i m m a t e r i a l . S e e H e rna nde z , 160 F . 3d a t667. A s the21

trus t e e i n ba nkrupt c y t e s t i f i e d dur i ng tr i a l , “ [ i ] f

a n a s s e ti s n’ ti nc l ude d i n the B a nkrupt c y P e t i t i on, tha tthe n m e a ns tha tthe a s s e ti s n’ tc ount e d i n f i gur i ng out ho w m uch credi t ors c an be repai d, w hi ch m ea ns thatcr edi t ors a re re pai d l es s than the y s houl d be r e pa i d. ” R 4 a t54. T hi s e vi de nc e w a s s uf f i c i e ntt o unde rm i ne A rc hi bal d’ s a r gu m entthathe i nt ended t o repayhi s c re di t ors i n ful l . F urtherm ore, w e r e je c t A r c h ib a ld ’s c la im th a t h e d id n o t u n d e r s ta n d th e s ig n if ic a n c e o f h is ac t i on s i n fi l i ng a pro r ata C hapt e r13 pe t i t i on, a nd tha tthe r e f or e he di d not s ubj e c t i ve l y i nt e nd al os s upon a ny one . A s e nt e nc i ng j udge “ i s notbound t o a c c e pt [ ad e f e n d a n t]’s s e lf

- s e rv in g a s s e r tio n s a t s e n te n c in g th a t h e in te n d e d n o lo s s to h is c r e d ito r s .” D o la n , 1 2 0 F .3 d a t 8 7 1 ( c ita tio n o m itte d ) . M oreover , court s have m ade c l ea r that , for purpo se s of det erm i ni ng i nt ended l oss und erU . S . S . G. § 2 B 1. 1, a def endant ’ s i nt entca n b e i nferre d from hi s c on du ct in c o n c e a lin g o ru n d e rv a lu in g la r g e a s s e ts f r o m ab a n k ru p tc y e s ta te . S e e , e .g ., F el d m an v . U n i t ed St at es, 3 3 8 F . 3 d 2 1 2 , 2 2 3 (3 d C i r . 2 0 0 3 ); U n i t ed St at es v . H ol tha us , 437 F . S upp. 2d 932, 937 ( N . D . I ow a2006) . I n F e l dm a n, ade f e nda nt w as ac cuse d o f und er st at i ng hi s i ncom e i n a bank rupt cypet i t i on and w as charged w i th v i ol at i ng 18 U . S . C . § 1 52 . 33 8 F . 3d at22 1. T he defendantargu ed on appeal thathe di d n otsubj ec t i vel y i nt end t o i nfl i cta l oss, si nce “ he tho ug htthe cr edi t ors w o u ld b e u n a f

f e c te d b y th e c o n c e a lm e n t” a n d h e b e lie v e d th a t th e e x c lu d e d a s s e ts22

w er e e xem ptfr om the bank rupt cypet i t i on . Id. T he courtre j ec t ed the cl ai m that the de f e nda ntl a c ke d i nt e nt , c onc l udi ng, on the c ontr a ry, tha tthe de f e nda nt ’ s i nt e nt t o i nf l i c tal os s c oul d be i nf

e rr e d f r om the s i m pl e f

a c ttha the c onc e a l e d al a r ge am o u n to f p ro p erty fro m h i s b an k ru p t cy p et i t i o n . Id . at2 2 3 . S ee al so H o l th au s, 93 2 F . S up p. 2d at93 7 (st at i ng thatthe fa ctthata def endantconceal ed as se t s w as evi dence thathe i nt ended t o d ef raud hi s c re di t ors) . S im ila r ly, in A r c h ib a ld ’s c a s e aju ry c o u ld c le a r ly in f e rf r o m h is c o n d u c t– in vast l y und er st at i ng the val ue of R oo st er ’ s on h i s bankrup t cypet i t i on and then be i ng unabl e t o e xpl a i n the di s c r e pa nc y–tha the s ubj e c t i ve l y “ i nt e nde d tha tthe e s t a t e be de c r e a s e d by the a m ounttha the w a s f a i l i ng t o di s c l os e . ” S e e F e l dm a n, 33 8 F . 3d at22 3. T he di stri ctcourtdi d n otac ti m prop er l y i n i nferri ng that A r c hi ba l d ha d i nt e nde d t o c a us e al os s t o hi s c r e di t or s . N ordi d i te rri n f i ndi ng th a t A r c h ib a ld ’s in te n d e d lo s s e q u a le d th e to ta l a m o u n t o f th e d e b t h e s o u g h t to di s c ha r ge i n ba nkrupt c y–as um i n e xc e s s of $1, 000, 000–the r e by w a rr a nt i ng a16- l e ve l e nha nc e m e ntt o hi s ba s e of f e ns e l e ve l . I n s um m a ry, w e di s c e rn no c l e a re rr or in th e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s c a lc u la tio n o f th e m o n e ta ry lo s s f

o rs e n te n c in g p u rp o s e s . D . S uf fi ci encyof the E vi dence F i na l l y , A r c hi ba l d a r gue s tha tthe di s tr i c tc our te rr e d i n de ny i ng hi s m ot i on f o rju d g m e n t f

o ra c q u itta l, s in c e th e e v id e n c e p r e s e n te d a t tr ia l w a s in s u f f ic ie n t to23

p r o v e h is g u ilt o n e ith e rc o u n t o f th e in d ic tm e n t b e y o n d ar e a s o n ab le d o u b t. S p e c if ic a lly , A r c h ib a ld a r g u e s th a t th e r e w a s in s u f f ic ie n t e v id e n c e to s h o w h is in te n t to e ith e rc o n c e a l a s s e ts o rto m a k e af a ls e o a th in c o n n e c tio n w ith h is b a n k ru p tc y . W e r e v ie w th e d e n ia l o f ad e f e n d a n t’s m o tio n f

o ra c q u itta l de no vo . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. P e r e z - T os t a , 36 F . 3d 1552, 1556 ( 11th C i r . 1994) ( c i t a t i ons o m itte d ) . “I n c o n s id e r in g th e s u f f ic ie n c y o f

th e e v id e n c e w e d r a w a ll r e a s o n ab le i nf e r e nc e s i n the [ g] ove rnm e nt ’ s f a vor . ” I d. ( c i t a t i ons om i tt e d) . W e “ c a nnot r e ve r s e ac onvi c t i on f

ori ns uf f i c i e nc y of

the e vi de nc e unl e s s a f

t e rr e vi e w i ng the e vi de nc e i n the l i ghtm os tf a vor abl e t o the gove rnm e nt , w e c onc l ude tha tno r e a s onabl e j uryc oul d f

i nd pr oof be y ond ar e a s onabl e doubt . ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. Jo n es, 9 1 3 F . 2 d 1 5 5 2 , 1 5 5 7 (1 1 th C i r. 1 9 9 0 ) (ci t at i o n o m i tt ed ). P u tan o th er w ay,

“ [ i ] ti s notne c e s s a ry tha tthe e vi de nc e e xc l ude e ve ry r e a s onabl e hy pothe s i s of in n o c e n c e o rb e w h o lly in c o n s is te n t w ith e v e ry c o n c lu s io n e x c e p t th a t o f g u ilt, p r o v id e d th a t ar e a s o n ab le tr ie ro f f a c t c o u ld f

in d th a t th e e v id e n c e e s tab lis h e d g u ilt beyond a r ea sonabl e dou bt . ” U ni t ed S t at es v. H arri s, 20 F . 3d 44 5, 45 2 (11 th C i r. 1 9 9 4 ) ( c ita tio n s o m itte d ) . I n or de rt o c onvi c tA r c hi ba l d of C ount s O ne a nd T w o of the i ndi c tm e nt , the j ury w a s obl i ga t e d t o f

i nd, be y ond ar e a s onabl e doubt , tha the di d “ know i ngl y a nd f r a udul e nt l y c onc e a l . . . pr ope r ty be l ongi ng t o the [ ba nkrupt c y ] e s t a t e ” a nd tha the24

d id “k n o w in g ly a n d f

r a u d u le n tly m a k e af

a ls e o a th o ra c c o u n t” in c o n n e c tio n w ith h is b a n k ru p tc y . 1 8 U .S .C . § 1 5 2 ( 1 ) a n d ( 2 ) . W e f in d th a t th e e v id e n c e p r e s e n te d is such thata r ea sonabl e j ury c ou l d con cl ud e thatea ch of these char ges w as prov en be y ond ar e a s onabl e doubt . T he gove rnm e ntpr e s e nt e d a m pl e e vi de nc e c onc e rni ng A r c hi ba l d’ s unde rva l ua t i on of hi s i nt e r e s ti n R oos t e r ’ s on hi s ba nkrupt c y pe t i t i on, as w el l as hi s uncon vi nci ng att em ptt o exp l ai n the di sc re pancy betw ee n the st at ed v a lu a tio n a n d th e a c tu a l v a lu a tio n . F i rs t , the go vernm entpres ent ed evi dence attri al thatA rc hi bal d k new that R oo st er ’ s B arnyar d w as w orth w el l m ore than $ 2, 00 0, by pres ent i ng vari ou s l oan appl i c a t i ons A r c hi ba l d c om pl e t e d, pr i ort o hi s ba nkrupt c y f i l i ng, i n w hi c h he r e p e a te d ly in d ic a te d th a t th e to ta l v a lu e o f th e c lu b w a s b e tw e e n $ 3 a n d $ 5 m illio n . S ec o n d , th e g o v er n m en t p re se n ted d am ag in g ev id en ce co n ce rn in g A rc h ib ald ’s contra di ct ory j ust i fi ca t i on s, af t erthe fa ct , as t o w hy he val ued the com pany at $2, 000 on hi s ba nkrupt c y pe t i t i on. H i s e xpl a na t i ons w e r e w oe f ul l y i nc ons i s t e nton thatpo i nt ; atvari ou s t i m es the j ury hea rd evi dence that$2 , 00 0 w as the am ou ntthat A r c hi ba l d or i gi na l l y i nve s t e d i n the bus i ne s s ; tha t$2, 000 w a s the va l ue of the l i c e ns e the c l ub ha d pa i d t o ope r a t e i n D e ka l b C ounty ; tha tA r c hi ba l d’ s f r i e nd advi se d h i m t o p ut$2 , 00 0 o n h i s pet i t i on ; thathi s bankrup t cycoun se l i nstruct ed h im to p la c e th a t v a lu a tio n o n th e c o m p a n y ; th a t h is b a n k ru p tc y c o u n s e l f a ile d to25

gi ve hi m any a dv i ce abou tho w t o v al ue the com pany; and thathi s bankrup t cy c ouns e l ’ s pa r a l e ga l t ol d hi m t o pl a c e tha tnum be ron the pe t i t i on. If vi ew ed i n a vacuum , ea ch of these sc enar i os m i gh tpl ausi bl y be def ended ag ai n stw i th an i n n o cen tex p l an at i o n . S ee H arri s, 2 0 F . 3 d at4 5 3 . T ak en h as a w h o le , h o w e v e r , th e y p r o v id e s u f f ic ie n t e v id e n c e f

o rar e a s o n ab le ju r o rto concl ud e thatthe prosecut i on prov ed beyond a r ea sonabl e dou btthatA rc hi bal d h ad the r e qui s i t e i nt e ntunde r18 U . S . C . § 152. S e e i d. T hi s i s e s pe c i a l l y s o s i nc e the

“ [s] u b seq u en tco n d u ct[o f a d efen d an t ] m ay b e co n si d ered i f i tsu p p o rt s a r e a s onabl e i nf

e r e nc e a s t o [ the de f

e nda nt ’ s ] pr i ori nt e nt . ” S e e U ni t e d S t a t e s v. M cC arri ck, 29 4 F . 3d 12 86 , 12 91 (11th C i r. 20 02 ). W hi l e A rc hi bal d p re se nt ed som e e vi dence t o sup po rthi s def ense of i nn ocentm i st ake r ather than i nt ent i on al m i s r e pr e s e nt a t i on, w e c a nnotf i nd tha t“ no r e a s onabl e j ury c oul d f i nd pr oof be y ond a reaso n ab l e d o u b t . ” S ee Jo n es, 9 1 3 F . 2 d at1 5 5 7 . T h e j u ry i n A rch i b al d ’ s case w a s “ f r e e t o c hoos e a m ong the c ons truc t i ons of the e vi de nc e , ” s e e H a rr i s , 20 F . 3d a t452 ( c i t a t i ons om i tt e d) , a nd i tc onc l ude d tha tthe e vi de nc e s uppor t e d af i ndi ng of gu i l tbeyond a r ea sonabl e dou bt . H i s m ot i on for j ud gm entof ac qu i tt al w as pr ope r l y de ni e d. I I I . CONCL US I ON A r c h ib a ld h a s ap p e a le d h is c o n v ic tio n s f o rk n o w in g ly a n d f

r a u d u le n tly26

c o n c e a lin g a n a s s e t o f

th e b a n k ru p tc y e s ta te f

r o m c r e d ito r s o rth e tru s te e in b an k ru p t cy, 1 8 U . S . C . § 1 5 2 (1 ), an d k n o w i n g l y an d frau d u l en t l y m ak i n g a fal se oath i n con nect i on w i th h i s bankrup t cyproceedi ng , 18 U . S . C . § 1 52 (2). H e has ar gu ed thatthe i nd i ctm entun der w hi ch he w as char ged w as i nsuffi ci ent ; that evi dence w as i m prop er l y a dm i tt ed agai nsthi m attri al ; thatthe di stri ctcourterre d i n c a l c ul a t i ng hi s s e nt e nc e ; a nd tha tthe e vi de nc e pr e s e nt e d a ttr i a l w a s i ns uf f i c i e nt t o p rove hi s gui l tbeyond a r ea sonabl e dou bt . H avi ng ca re ful l y r evi ew ed the re cord an d th e b rief

s o f th e p ar ti es , w e d isce rn n o er ro r in co n n ec ti o n w ith A rc h ib ald ’s in d ictm en t, h is trial, o r h is su b se q u en t sen ten ce . A cc o rd in g ly, A rc h ib ald ’s conv i ct i on s a re AF F I RME D.