F I L E D U . S
. C O U R T O F A P P E A L S E L E V E N T H C I R C U I T J U N E 1 4 , 2 0 1 1 J O H N L E Y C L E R K [PUBLIS H] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 0 7- 14 60 2

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D. C. Dock etNo. 0 5- 00 26 9- CR-TWT-11 -1 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us PHILLIP E. HILL, MARC US ALCINDOR, a.k .a. Ch ris to ph er Al ci nd or , ROBERT POWERS, CHRIS TINE LAUD ERMILL, DAVID VAN MERSB ERGEN, FRED FARM ER, DAVID THOMAS, LESLIE RECTOR, BARBARA BROWN , a.k.a. B arb ara Euba nk s, Defen da nt s- App el la nt s.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal s fr om

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e North ern Dis tri ctof Ge or gi a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ (J un e 1 4, 2 01 1)Befo re EDMONDSON, CARNES, an d ANDERSON, Ci rcu itJu dg es .

CARNES, Ci rcu itJu dg e: Whe n P hi ll ip Hil l was a y ou ng m angro win g up i n t he sm al l t own of Su m atra, Fl or id a h e h el pe d t en d h is gra nd fathe r’s be eh iv es . He wou ld , as h is la wy er wo ul d l at er t el l the jury, “ ge t t he ho ne y ou t o f th e h iv es .” Andhe was go odat wh athe di d, b ei ng na m ed“ Fl or id a b eek eep er o f th e y ear” when he was twen ty y ears ol d. Th ree d ecad es lat er, Hil l g otin vo lv edin th e b us y hi ve of Atl an ta ’s hi gh -en d re si de nt ia l re al est at e m ark et . His g oa l was st il l t o g etou t as
m uc h h on ey

as h e co ul d. Fro m

20 00 to 20 03 Hil l an d h is ass oc ia te s s co op edou t of th e m ark etalm os t $ 22 m il li onin il li ci t g ai n. Th ey di d i t b y frau du le nt ly ob ta in in g o ve r 30 0 m ortg ag e-b ack edlo an s fo r bu y ers who us edth e lo an s t o pu rch as e Atl an ta -are a h ou se s an d c on do m in iu m s fr om Hil l an d h is ass oc ia te s at
m or e th anm ark etva lu e. Alm os t al l o f th os e lo an s, t ot al in g $ 11 0 m il li on , went in to de fau ltcau si ng len de rs an d g ua ran to rs to be stun g wi th ov er $ 38 m il li on in lo ss es . Inn oc en t h om eo wne rs in ne ig hb orho od s t ha t wer e h itwith fo recl os ur es an d d is to rte d p ro pe rty val ue s caus edby the sch em e al so fel t t he pa in , andm an y pe op le who were u se d a s s tra w bu y ers su ffer edrui ne d c red itan d anu m be r of th em wen t b an krup t. 2Bi g fr au d s ch em es ge ne ral ly giv e ri se to bi g p ro se cu ti on s, an d t hi s o ne is no

ex cep ti on . In thi s t ria l al on e th ere wer e a d oz ende fen da nt s, an d t he 18 7- co un t in di ct m en t ag ai ns t the m

in vo lv edm or e th an30 0 t ran sa ct io ns . The g ov ern m en t’s
ex hi bi t l is t, wh ic h was 17 8 p ag es lo ng , in cl ud ed1,1 35 ex hi bi ts th atfil le d 8 fil in g cab in et s. Th e g ov ern m en t al so pre se nt edm or e th an10 0 wi tn es se s, ei th er thr ou gh li ve tes ti m on y

or t he pa rti es ’ st ip ul at io n abo utwhatth attes ti m on y wou ldbe . The pr es en ta ti on of t he ev id en ce t oo k 3 1 t ria l d ay s. In th e en d, al l b uttwo of t he twel ve de fen dant s wer e co nv ic te d o f atlea stso m e ch arg es , andth ey were se nt en cedto term s o f im

pr is on m en t ra ng in g fr om 5 m on th s t o 2 8 years. Bi g m ul ti -d efen dantpro se cu ti on s g en eral ly giv e ri se to bi g app eal s an d l on g op in io ns . Reg rettabl y , th is on e is no ex cep ti on . I. Factua l Ba ck gr ou nd A. The Sch em e Hil l o r en ti ti es he crea te d p ur ch as edpro pe rti es th atth ey so ldto st raw bu y ers forsubs ta nt ia ll y

m or e th anth e co stor v al ue of tho se pro pe rti es . The s al es were fi na nc edwith m ortg ag es ba se d o n p ro pe rty val ue s t ha t wer e in fla te d b y va rio us frau du le ntrep res en ta ti on s t ha t Hi ll orc he st rat ed . The b uyers u lt im at el y de fau lt edon th e lo an s an d t he m ortg ag es were fo recl os ed , bu t b y th enHil l an d h is

3as so ci at es ha d g ot te n t he ir p ro fit s fr om th e swe etde al s t he y

ha d m ad e b y

sel li ng th e p ro pe rti es at i nf

la te d p ric es . The hi gh er the pro pe rty val ue th e larg er the lo an , th e la rg er the lo anth e hi gh er the sal es pri ce, an d the hi gh er the sal es pri ce the lar ge r th e p ro fit . In o rd er to ob ta in lo an s fo r th e h ig he stpo ss ib le pro pe rty val ue , andreap th e h ig he st po ss ib le pro fit , Hil l an d h is ass oc ia te s m ad e a m ul ti tu de of m is rep res en ta ti on s t o le nd ers . They li eda lo t. The y li edab ou t t he tru e b uyers, an d t he y li edab ou t t he
so ur ce o f th e d own pa ym en ts , andth ey li edab ou t t he va lu e o f th e p ro pe rti es , and th ey li edab ou t the in co m e an d e m pl oym en t o f th e b uyers, an d t he y li edab ou t whe th er the bu y ers wou ldoc cupy the pro pe rti es , andth ey li edab ou t wh ethe r an y ot he r pr op ert ie s o wne d b y th e b uyers wer e b ei ng lea se d. Hil l an d h is ass oc ia te s l ie d abo utth e true own ers of t he pro pe rti es in ord er to di sg ui se th e fac t tha t Hi ll -o wne d e nt it ie s wer e b eh in d a ll of t he tra ns act io ns an d
were ac tu al ly sell in g t he pro pe rti es to th em se lv es . Unb ekno wns t t o t he len de rs , Hil l h adrecrui te d p eo pl e wit h g oo d c red itsco res to serve as s tra w bu y ers of t he pr op ert ie s. He ev enha d s om e o f th em pu rch as e se ve ral pro pe rti es fro m hi m us in g lo an s fr om

di ffer en t l en de rs , all of wh ic h wer e o bt ai ne d wi th ina sh ort p eri odof ti m e so th ateach su cces si ve len de r wou ldno t fi ndou t ab ou t t he othe r lo an s t o t ha t bo rro wer. Onc e m

ul ti pl e lo an s o r m ortg ag es sh owe d up o n the bu y er’s cre di t 4rep ort, wh ic h t y pi cal ly too k afew week s, i t b ecame dif fic ul t fo r th atbu y er t o qu al ify for n ew lo an s. At tha t p oi nt , th e b uyer’s us efu ln es s t o Hi ll was a t an en d
an d h e wou ldrecrui t a n ew bu y er. Hil l an d h is ass oc ia te s l ie d abo utth e so ur ce o f th e d ownpa ym en ts to co ve r up th e fac t t ha t Hi ll ha d s up pl ie d m os t o r al l o f th atm on ey to th e straw b uyers. Len de rs wantto kn ow tha t m on ey fora do wn p aym en t ac tu al ly com es fro m th e bu y er b ecau se a bu y er wh o h as a subs ta nt ia l s ta ke in th e p ro pe rty is c on si de reda be tt er cr ed itris k. Th atis why th ey in qu ire ab ou t t he so ur ce o f a d own pa ym en t be fo re m ak in g alo an . Hill cir cu m ve nt edth atsaf

eg ua rdin a varie ty of way s. So m et im es Hil l o r anass oc ia te wou ldgi ve a bo rro wer m on ey to pa rk in he r ba nk
acco un t ju stlo ng en ou gh forth e le nd er t o v eri fy th e m on ey ’s pre se nc e, th enth ey wou ldtak e itba ck . Oth er t im es th ey fal si fie d t he HUD-1 s et tl em en t s ta te m en ts 1 th atwere s ig ne d a t the clo si ng s t o s ho w “ cas h fr om bo rro wer” wh enth e m on ey ha d a ctua ll y

co m e fro m

Hil l, an en ti ty he co nt ro ll ed , or o ne of h is ass oc ia te s. Yet ot he r ti m es cas hi er’s ch eck s wer e fo rg edor a lt eredto sh ow ea rli er ea rn es t m on ey pa ym en ts fro m

th e b uyers t o Hi ll as s el le r, whe n i n fa ctth atm on ey ha d c om e fro m

“The Housingand Ur

ban De velopment-1 (‘ HUD- 1’) state ment is a settlement form use d 1 in closing a

proper ty sale; it details the costs and f ees a ssociated with a mor tga g e loan.” Busby

v. J RHBW Realty , Inc., 513 F .3d 1314, 1319 (11th Cir. 2008) (c iting United States v. Ga udin, 515 U.S. 506, 508, 115 S.C t. 2310, 2312 (1995); B rig g s v. Country wide F unding Corp., 188 F .R.D. 645, 646 (M.D. Ala.1999) ). 5ot he r so ur ces . The fal se ch eck s wer e cre at edby alte rin g a ctua l ch eck s fr om th e ba nkacco un t o f a s tra w bu y er. W ith m os t o r al l o f th e lo an s, the bo rro wers si gn ed do cu m en ts at c lo si ng fal se ly repre se nt in g t ha t t he y were s up pl y in g t he do wn pa ym en t m on ey . Hil l an d h is ass oc ia te s l ie d abo utth e v al ue of the pro pe rti es to cir cum ve nt le nd ers ’ lo an -to -v al ue requi rem en ts an d i nc reas e th e se ll in g p ric e. Tho se li es were to ldth ro ug h fr au du le nt ly infl at edpro pe rty val ua ti on s t ha t Hi ll pro cu red . For
ex am pl e, a b an k wo ul d m ak e a l oa n fo r $2 00 ,00 0 u nd er the ass um pt io n t ha t i t was le nd in g 8 0% o n apro pe rty worth $ 25 0,0 00 , when in real ity th e b an k was len di ng 13 3% o n apro pe rty worth o nl y $1 50 ,00 0. To pu ll th is off Hil l n eed edth e co op erat io n o f ap pr ai se rs , andhe bo ug htwhathe ne ed ed . The ap pr ai se rs supp orte d t he ir i nf

la te d v al ua ti on s b y

ch erry-pi ck in g i napp ro pr ia te co m pa rat iv e sa le s; by con ceal in g re cen t p rio r sa le s o f th e sa m e p ro pe rty for fa r lo wer am ou nt s; by inc lu di ng up gr ad es th atha d n otactua ll y be endo ne ; an d b y

ne gl ect in g t o re po rt co nd it io ns th atwou ldde pr es s p ro pe rty val ue s, s uc h a s a p ro pe rty’ s p ro xi m it y to rai lro adtra ck s o r a l an df

il l o r it s i nf

es ta ti on with b la ckm ol d. Hil l an d h is ass oc ia te s l ie d abo utth e st raw b uyers’ in co m e o n the lo an ap pl ic at io ns in ord er t o qua li fy th e b uyers fo r lo an s o f th e si ze the y were s eek in g. Andth os e li es in tu rnrequi redli es ab ou t t he bu y ers ’ em pl oym en t an d p os it io ns to 6av oi d a ro us in g s us pi ci on s ab ou t t he rep orte d i nc om e. As p artof t he li es so m e

bo rro wers go t “pr om ot ed ” o n t he ir l oa n app li cat io ns . For e xa m pl e, Edd ie Bl an ch ard , a po st al cle rkin a sm al l Lo ui si an a to wn, b ecame “ Po st m as te r of Atl an ta ” o n h is ap pl ic at io n. Oth er b uyers ac qu ire d i m pr es si ve -s ou nd in g e xe cu ti ve ti tl es at c om

pa ni es wher e th ey

ha d n ev er wo rk edor a t co m pa ni es th atdi d n otev en ex is t. If t he len de rs tri edto ve rif y th e em pl oym en t an d i nc om e in fo rm at io n, Hi ll ’s
as so ci at es wou ldge ne rat e fak e W-2s a ndpa y stub s, o r th ey

wou ldan swe r ph on e cal ls po si ng as t he bo rro wer’s em pl oyer. Hil l an d h is ass oc ia te s l ie d abo utth e in te nd edus e o f th e p ro pe rti es in ord er to ge t the be tt er l oa n t erm s an d i nt eres t ra te s av ai labl e fo r own er-o ccupi ed pr op ert ie s. Len de rs op erat e o n t he ass um pt io n t ha t a b orro wer wil l b e m or e m ot iv at edto m ak e p aym en ts on hi s o wn h om e th anon anin ve stm en t p ro pe rty, whi chis why in ve st m en t l oa ns requi re h ig he r in te res t ra te s an d l arg er d own pa ym en ts . As fo r co nd om in iu m s, s om e d ev el op m en ts ha d re st ric ti on s o n the pe rcen ta ge of u ni ts th atco ul d b e ren te d o ut , andm an y len de rs wou ldno t l en d o n co nd om in iu m

un it s i f th e co m

pl ex ’s own er-o ccupa nc y

rat e was be lo w a cert ai n le ve l. Carry in g o utHil l’s i ns tru ct io ns , straw b uyers re pr es en te d o n e ach lo an ap pl ic at io n t ha t the y

in te nd edto us e th e p ro pe rty as the ir “ pr im ary res id en ce,”
ev enth ou gh th ey

actua ll y were b uyin g m

ul ti pl e p ro pe rti es an d h adno in te nt io n o f 7m ov in g i nt o a ny of th em . So m e o f th e b uyers s li pp edup an d p oi nt edth is ou t at

cl os in gs . Mos t o f th em

were t ol d b y

th os e co nduc ti ng th e cl os in g (wh o wer e be in g p ai d b y

Hil l) t ha t the y

ha d t o s ay

th ey were g oi ng to oc cupy the pro pe rty in
or de r to ge t the lo an . Oth er b uyers s ig ne d t he ir n am e to bl an k app li cat io n fo rm s, le av in g Hi ll an d h is ass oc ia te s t o g en erat e wha te ve r fal se in fo rm at io n was ne ces sa ry to m eetth e le nd er’s u nd erwri ti ng st an da rd s. Hil l an d h is ass oc ia te s l ie d abo utwhet he r an y res id en ces th atth e b uyers al read y own edan d o ccupi edwou ldbe lea se d i n o rd er t o c ov er up t he factth atth e ne w pro pe rti es wou ldno t b e u se d a s re si de nc es . Agai n, o wne r-o ccupi edho us in g at tra ct s b et te r lo an -to -v al ue rat io s t ha n i nv es tm en t p ro pe rty do es . Andth e straw bu y ers who di d d is cl os e to len de rs th atth ey were b uyin g t he pro pe rti es for in ve st m en t n eed edto sh ow t ha t t he pro pe rti es wou ldpro du ce en ou gh ren ta l in co m e to co ve r th e m ortg ag e p aym en ts . Hill an d h is ass oc ia te s m etth is ne edby ge ne rat in g fa ke lea se co nt ract s wi thno ne xi st en t t en an ts or b y gro ss ly infl at in g t he in co m e g en erat edby pro pe rti es th atactua ll y were re nt ed
. Hil l’s s ch em e n eed edno t o nl y a lo t o f lying li ars bu t al so a sl ew of st raw bu y ers . Hill recrui te d t he st raw b uyers b y pi tc hi ng a bu si ne ss m od el th at supp os ed ly inv ol ve d b uyin g d is tre ss edpro pe rti es at adi sc ou nt , ren ov at in g a nd fu rn is hi ng th em , ren ti ng th em ou t o n l uc rat iv e sh ort-t erm lea se s t o c or

po rat e 8ex ecu ti ve s, at hl et es , anden te rta in ers , andlat er s el li ng th em fora ha nd so m e p ro fit
. He to ldhi s “ in ve st or s” — the st raw b uyers — th atth ey wou ldno t h av e to pu t an y of th ei r ownm on ey

in to th e d eal , justth ei r na m e an d g oo d c red it . Hill ass ur ed th em th athe wou ldtak e car e o f m ortg ag e p aym en ts , tax es , in su ran ce, as so ci at io n fees , andall ot he r ex pe ns es , andth athe wou ldm ai nt ai n the pro pe rti es , lea se th em , an d c ol le ctth e ren ts . Afte r th e st raw b uyers p ur ch as edpro pe rti es , Hil l wo ul d h av e th em si gn qu it cl ai m de ed s, co nv ey in g t he pro pe rti es ba ckto hi m . Tho se qu it cl ai m de ed s were co nc eal edfro m

th e le nd ers , andth ey

were n otreco rd edun ti l Hi ll was re ady to res el l the pro pe rty. O rd in ari ly, th e ear li er m ortg ag es wou ldha ve be enpi ck ed up on a ti tl e se arch be fo re a l at er l oa n was m ad e, bu t Hi ll bri be d s om e o f th e at to rn ey s d oi ng th e cl os in g wo rkto rep ort cl ear t it le to th e le nd ers . In tha t way he
was ab le to run so m e o f th e p ro pe rti es th ro ug h t he len di ng pro ces s m or e th an on ce, the reb y

ge ne rat in g asec on d o r th irdrou ndof i ll ic itga in s. Inord er t o g etth e m on ey he ne ed edfor

th e d ownpa ym en ts th atth e st raw bu y ers frau du le nt ly clai m edto ha ve pro vi de d a t t he ir c lo si ng s, Hi ll bo rro wed

“ ha rdm on ey ” — s ho rt- te rm cas h l oa ns at d oubl e-d ig itin te res t ra te s —fro m weal th y acqua in tanc es li ke FredFil so f an d J oh n Kru ge r. The s uc ces s o f th e sc he m e d ep en de d o n t he frau du le nt ly obt ai ne d l oa n p ro ceed s co m in g i n fa st 9en ou gh to pa y off th e h ardm on ey

lo an s. Th e o nl y

way Hil l co ul d s ta y

cu rren t o n ex is ti ng m ortg ag e lo an s was by usi ng th e in co m in g fl ow o f sa le s p ro ceed s. Eve ntua ll y

th e who le ho us e h adto co ll ap se . W it hi n afew m on th s o f th ei r cl os in gs , straw b uyers fo un d t he m se lv es be si eg edwith l et te rs an d p ho ne cal ls fro m ba nk s co m

pl ai ni ng th atpa ym en ts on th ei r lo an s wer e n otbe in g m ad e. Hil l pr om is edth e st raw b uyers h e wou ldtak e car e o f th e p aym en ts , bu t h e n ev er d id
. Onc e th ei r cre di t was rui ne d, the y were n o l on ge r of

an y us e to hi m

an d h e qui t returni ng th ei r cal ls
. Alt ho ug h a ll of t he bu y ers ha d g oo d c red itsco res be fo re the y m etHil l, m os t of th em lac ke d t he ass et s t o m ak e d own pa ym en ts onth e p ro pe rti es . Man y wou ld ha ve ha d d iff

ic ul ty m ak in g the pay

m en t o n asi ng le lo an , letalo ne on th e m ul ti pl e m ortg ag es th atwere t ak enou t i n t he ir n am es . Alth ou gh so m e (m ay be all ) of th e bo rro wers su sp ect edso m ethi ng fis hy was g oi ng on , th ey pl ay edth ei r ro le s an yway . Whe n que st io ne d, s om e o f th em cla im edth atth ey

th ou gh t tha t t he tra ns act io ns m

us t b e le ga l b ecau se th ere wer e at to rn ey s p res en t atth e cl os in gs . The att orne y s, h owe ve r, m ad e a p oi ntof l eav in g t he roo m when th e ch eck s wer e pa ss edaro un d. Inreturn fo r th ei r pa rt i n t he sch em e, th e b uyers wer e p ai d a nywhere fro m $1 0,0 00 to $4 0,0 00 foreach lo antra ns act io n. As s om e o f th em lat er t es ti fie d a t 10tri al , ho wev er, tho se paym en ts were n otwort h t he da m ag e d on e to th ei r cre di t

reco rd s o nc e th e lo an s wen t i nt o d efau ltan d t he m ortg ag es were fo recl os ed
. Tho se Hil l l ur edin as s tra w bu y ers were n otth e o nl y on es who were i nju red by the sch em e. The n ei gh bo rh oo ds wher e th e p ro pe rti es were l oc at edsu ffer ed fro m de pr es se d h ou si ng va lu es be cau se of the for ecl os ur es th atalwa y s fo ll owe d th e p ur ch as es . The co ll at eral da m ag e fro m Hil l’s fraudwas e ve n wo rs e atth e co nd om in iu m

co m pl ex es be cau se , as we h av e m en ti on ed , on ce the pe rcen ta ge of in ve st or -o wne d u ni ts ex ceed s a c ert ai n t hr es ho ld , len de rs ge ne ral ly w il l re fu se to lo anm on ey

foran y ot he r un it s i n t ha t co m

pl ex . At co m

pl ex es wher e Hil l h ad bo ug htan d fl ip pe d n um ero us un it s, the va lu e-d is to rti ng frau du le ntap pr ai sa ls , fo recl os ur es , andrel at edli ti ga ti on be twee n Hi ll an d t he co nd om in iu m ass oc ia ti on s de st ro y edva lu e, ti edup ti tl e, an d m ad e itdi ffi cu ltor i m po ss ib le forth e h un dr ed s of leg it im at e o wne r-o ccupi ers to sel l o r refi nanc e th ei r own un it s. Be cau se Hil l’s
un it s fa il edto pa y

th ei r du es , th e co m

pl ex es als o l ack edth e fund s n eces sa ry to
m ai nt ai n c omm on area s, wh ic h fu rth er d ep res se d t he va lu e o f th e p ro pe rti es . B. Hil l’s As so ci at es 2

Although nume rous people w ere involved in ever y step of Hill’s sche me, in order to 2 simpli fy the discussion in this s ubsection, wename only those who we re pr osecute d in this case. 11Hil l co ul d n otcarry ou t s uc h aso ph is ti cat edsch em e wit ho utpl en ty of he lp
. He ha d aswarm

of l oa n b ro ke rs , clo si ng att orne y s, ap pr ai se rs , ass is ta nt s, an d
recrui te rs . Lesl ie Rect orbe ga n wo rk in g fo r Hil l dur in g t he su m m er o f 20 00 an d be cam e h is rig ht -h an d m an . He was re sp on si bl e fo r m an ag in g, co or di na ti ng , and faci li ta ti ng Hil l’s s ch em e, an d h e worke d wi th all of t he ke y co -co ns pi rat or s, in cl ud in g t he st raw b uyers, re cru it ers , bro ke rs , app rai se rs , andclo si ng att orne y s. He supp li edth e fal se lea se ag reem en ts us edto ob ta in lo an s, an d a fte r th e cl os in gs he go t the st raw b uyers t o s ig n qui tc la im de ed s co nv ey in g t he pro pe rti es ba ckto Hil l i n re tu rnfora pr om is e th atHil l wo ul d m ak e th e m ortg ag e p aym en ts forth em . Sev eral m ortg ag e b ro ke rs , in cl ud in g R ob ertPo wers , act iv el y de cei ve d t he le nd ers by repre se nt in g t ha t the bo rro wers in te nd edto us e th e p ro pe rti es as a pr im ary res id en ce, o r by con ceal in g t he tru e o rig in of t he do wn p aym en ts . App rai se rs su ch as F redFarm er an d B arb ara B ro wn p erfo rm edfrau du le nt ap pr ai sa ls on th e p ro pe rti es , gi vi ng th em in fla te d v al ue s an d c on ceal in g e arl ie r sa le s s o tha t the bu y ers co ul d o bt ai n m or e m on ey fro m len de rs th anth e p ro pe rti es were ac tu al ly w orth
. To fe edth e sc he m e’s ap pe ti te forst raw b uyers, Hi ll us eda ne two rkof
recrui te rs . Marcu s Al ci nd or , Ril ey Grah am , Chr is ti ne Laud erm il l, an d Dav id 12Tho m as all recrui te d s tra w bu y ers by tell in g t he m th atth ey wou ldbe pu rch as in g th e p ro pe rti es forHil l wh enin real it y th ey were b uyin g t he m

fro m hi m . The
recrui te rs wou ldpro m is e th e b uyers t ha t Hi ll wou ldpa y th e m ortg ag es on th ei r

“ in ve st m en t p ro pe rti es .” Ch eryl Denn y , Davi d Th om as , andDavi d Van Mer sb erg enwere am on g t he lar ge nu m be r of pe op le who serve d a s s tra w bu y ers fo r pr op ert ie s as so ci at edwith Hi ll
. C. The P ro pe rti es Hil l’s s ch em e in vo lv eda ho stof h ou se s, co nd om in iu m un it s, an d s om e res id en ti al lo ts in th e Atl an taarea . Som e o f th e p ro pe rti es ha d b een on th e m ark et fo r m on th s wi th ou t s el li ng . After Hi ll bo ug htth em , he i m m ed ia te ly re-so ldth em atm uc h h ig he r pr ic es to hi s s tra w bu y ers in de al s fi na nc edby fraudul en tl y pr oc ur edlo an s. So m e o f th e p ro pe rti es Hil l b ou gh t h adfal le n i nt o aba d s ta te whi le th ey

satva can t, b utth atdi d n otst op hi m fro m us in g t he m . For e xa m

pl e, aft er b uyin g o ne ho us e fo r $1 .4 m il li on , Hil l u se d a n i nf la te d v al ua ti on to re-s el l i t to a st raw b uyer for$2 .8 m il li on , eve n t ho ug h t he ho us e was in fes te d t hr ou gh ou t wit h b la ckm ol d. Ina si m il ar fa sh io n, Hi ll bo ug htan d re so ldon e g ro up of r es id en ti al lo ts . He
us edon e o f hi s co m

pa ni es , Est at es Atl an ta , Inc ., to pu rch as e 3 4 re si de nt ia l l ot s an d s ix co m

pl et edho m es lo cat edin th e Cas cad e subd iv is io n. Lat er, Ma rcu s 13Alci nd or

an d R il ey

Grah am (ak a Ri le y

W il li am s) form edth e Alc in do r-Will ia m s Gro up , LLC, whic h b ou gh t 2 7 o f th e 3 4 C as cad e lo ts fro m Est at es Atl an tawith a lo anfro m Cen tru m Fin an ci al . In the ir l oa n app li cat io n Al ci nd or an d Gra ha m m ad e se ve ral fal se st at em en ts an d re pr es en ta ti on s, i nc lu di ng a frau du le ntfin an ci al st at em en t an d fa ls ifi edsal es ag reem en ts be twee n Es ta te s At la nt a an d s tra w buy ers of so m e o f th e lo ts . The l oa n re qu es t al so in cl ud eda frau du le ntap pr ai sa l t ha t va lu edth e 2 7 l ot s at$2 .7 m il li onbu t fa il edto rev eal th e ear li er p ur ch as e o f al l 3 4 lo ts forles s t ha n t ha t am ou ntor t ha t t he se “ lu xu ry ” lo ts were ac tu al ly bor de redby a rai lro adtra ckan d alan df il l. Lik e th e fraudul en t l oa ns on ho us es an d c on do m in iu m s, Al ci nd or an d Grah am ha d t o s ho w Cen tru m

th atth ey ha d ast ak e in th e Cas cad e v en tu re i n o rd er to qu al ify for the lo an . To m ak e th atsh owi ng , th ey pre se nt edCen tru m

with al te redch eck s as ev id en ce o f th ei r pa ym en ts form ark et in g wo rkth atwas n ev er actua ll y do ne , Hil l p erjuredhi m se lf i n a n a ffi da vi t s ta ti ng th atth e Alc in do rW il li am s Gro up ha d p ai d h im $1 50 ,00 0, an d Al ci nd oran d Gra ha m pre se nt edat cl os in g ach eckth atwas s up po se dl y pa idto Hil l, wh enitactua ll y cam e fro m

Hil l. Unb ekno wns t t o C en tru m , th e Alc in do r-Will ia m s Gro up ha d e nt eredin to an ag reem en t wi th Hil l, thr ou gh Est at es Atl an ta , fora se co ndlo ansec ur edby a pr om is so ry

no te th atwas t o b e fu nd edby the m on ey th ey m ad e fro m

frau du le nt 14sa le s t o s tra w bu y ers of t hr ee Hi ll -o wne d h ou se s i n the Cas cad e subd iv is io n. Hi ll

th enus edth os e fraudul en tl y ob ta in edlo anpro ceed s t o p ay off on e o f hi s o wn cred it or s wh o h adlo an edhi m m on ey on th e lo ts . D. The Ch art er Ba nkFrau d Onc e m ortg ag e le nd ers be ga n t o c at ch on to th e fraud , sev eral qu itde al in g wit h Hi ll . Desp erat e to ke ep th e h iv e h umm in g, Hi ll so ug htou t a n ew so ur ce o f fin an ci ng . Chr is to ph er Ba ke r, a b an ki ng cli en t o f Ch art er Ba nk , in tro du cedhi m to FredVarg as , a vi ce p res id en t atCh art er. Bak er p res en te d Hi ll as s om eo ne who
ne ed eda lo anan d wh o a ls o c ou ldpro vi de Varg as with a n e xc it in g re al est at e op po rtu ni ty. Varg as was e xc it edby the Hil l i nv es tm en t s ch em e an d t he ch an ce t o m ak e so m e qui ckm on ey . He bo ug htsev eral co nd om in iu m s fr om Hil l at

“ di sc ou nt ed ” p ric es with the in te nt io n o f fl ip pi ng th em at apro fitan d re pl aci ng th e m on ey he ha d s to le n b efo re an y on e n ot ic editwas g on e. Inord er t o fi na nc e h is pu rch as e o f th os e p ro pe rti es , Varg as st ol e m on ey fro m th e b an k b y

us in g frau du le nt ly creat edli ne s o f cre di t. Exp lo it in g the op po rtu ni ty pres en te d b y hi s n ew co nf

ed erat e in cri m e, Hil l go t Var ga s t o i ss ue li ne s o f cre di t t o t wo Hi ll -co nt ro ll eden ti ti es , Atl an taCo nd o Park in g a ndSto rag e an d At la nt a Mi ll en ni um , whi ch were s up po se dl y sec ur edby
ex trapa rk in g s pa ces forsal e in co nd om in iu m co m pl ex es an d b y

(no ne xi st en t) 15“ acco un ts rece iv ab le .” Becaus e Varg as on ly hadau th or ity to m ak e lo an s o f $1 00 ,00 0 o r le ss witho utsee ki ng th e ap pr ov al of asupe rv is or , he s etup two se pa rat e li ne s o f cre di t fo r th e two Hil l en ti ti es , on e at$9 0,0 00 an d o ne at $ 80 ,00 0. Afte r Hil l d efau lt edon th es e lo an s, as di d asu sp ic io us ly hig h n um be r of ot he r bo rro wers who ha d wo rk edwith Var ga s, the bankin ve st ig at edan d u nc ov ered Varg as ’ sc he m e in lat e 2 00 2, wh ic h e ve ntua ll y ledto hi s re si gn at io n fr om th e b an k in Marc h 2 00 3. E. The In ve st ig at io n Len de rs be ga n i nv es ti ga ti ng aft er the y no ti ceda hi gh nu m

be r of lo an de fau lt s as so ci at edwith c ert ai n b ro ke rs . Duri ng th ei r in te rn al in ve st ig at io ns , au di to rs un co ve redfal si fie d i nf orm at io n a ndva lu at io ns in so m e lo anap pl ic at io ns . In20 01 Fan ni e Ma e b eg ananin ve st ig at io n, an d t he n the IRS i ni ti at edit s o wn cri m in al in ve st ig at io n. In ve st ig at or s ap pr oa ch edsev eral pa rti ci pant s i n Au gu st
an d S ep te m

be r of 20 01 to di sc us s p le a d eal s. In th e m ean ti m e, Hil l k ep t h is
sc he m e g oi ng by con ti nu in g t o fr au du le nt ly “ fli p” ho us es an d c on do m in iu m s wel l in to 20 03 de sp it e h is awaren es s fr om lat e 2 00 1 o nwa rdth athe was u nd er in ve st ig at io n; he was e ve n re cei vi ng subp oe na s dur in g t ha t t im e. W ayne Jen ki ns an d TedTaga la ki s, l oa n b ro ke rs who ha d wo rk edforHil l, be ga n c oo pe rat in g wi th th e g ov ern m en t’s i nv es ti ga ti on inlat e 2 00 1 a ndearl y 1620 02 . Each o f th em pl ead edgu il ty in s ep arat e cas es an d re cei ve d re du ced
se nt en ces in ex ch an ge forth ei r co op erat io n a ndtes ti m on y at tria l. Rec to r, who was Hi ll ’s sec on d i n c omm an d, was ap pr oa ch edby in ve st ig at or s i n F eb ru ary 20 03 . He beg angi vi ng in te rv ie ws an d p ro vi di ng do cu m en ts , andhe co nt in ue d c oo pe rat in g wel l i nt o 2 00 5 u nt il ne go ti at io ns bro ke do wn, an d h e was in di ct edin Jan ua ry 20 06
. Varg as be ga n c oo pe rat in g wi th th e g ov ern m en t’s i nv es ti ga ti on ne ar the en d of 20 03 , im pl ic at in g Hi ll in th e Ch art er l in e o f cre di t fr au d. In May 200 4 Var ga s pl ead edgu il ty in a s ep arat e cas e to ch arg es of c on sp ira cy an d b an k fr au d a ndwas se nt en cedto 51 m on th s i m pr is on m en t. Aft er h e te st ifi edfor th e g ov ern m en t i n th is tri al , hi s s en te nc e was reduc edun de r a Ru le 35 m ot io n t o 2 6 m on th s. See Fed . R. Cri m . P. 35
. InNov em

be r of 20 04 , Hil l, Ba ke r an d o th er Varg as ba nkcli en ts were in di ct edin a cas e in vo lv in g t he Ch art er l in e o f cre di t co ns pi racy. Hil l’s ca se was la te r se ve redfro m

th aton e an d t he ch arg es ag ai ns t h im were co ns ol id at edwith ot he rs in th is cas e. II. Pro cedur al His to ry A. The In di ct m en t

17Thi s ca se wentto tri al on th e th irdsupe rs ed in g i nd ic tm en t, wh ic h was

returne d i n No ve m

be r 20 06
. It c ha rg ed18 de fen da nt s wi tha to ta l o f 18 7 c ou nt s, in cl ud in g t hr ee s ep arat e co ns pi raci es an d aho stof s ub st an ti ve co un ts . The 3 ch arg es were g ro up edaro un d e ach of t he th ree c on sp ira ci es . The fir stgro up of c ha rg es , Cou nt s 1 th ro ug h 1 4, ch arg edHil l an d B ak er wit h c on sp ira cy

to de frau d C ha rte r Ban k a ndTrus t i n v io la ti on of 1 8 U.S.C. § 37 1; with b rib in g Var ga s i n c on ne ct io n wi th Ch art er’s b us in es s an d tran sa ct io ns in vi ol at io n o f 18 U.S.C. §§ 21 5( a)(1 ); wi th two in st an ces of b an k fr au d i n v io la ti on of 18 U.S.C. § 1 34 4; with fo ur in st an ces of m ak in g fa ls e st at em en ts to in flu en ce th e cre di t d eci si on of afin an ci al in st itut io n i n v io la ti on of 1 8 U.S.C. § 10 14 ; an d wit h s ix in st an ces of m on ey lau nd eri ng in vi ol at io n o f 18 U.S.C. § 1 95 7. The sec on d g ro up of c ha rg es , Cou nt s 1 5 t hr ou gh 18 , charg edHil l, Al ci nd or , Mo ss , Bak er, an d Gra ha m with c on sp iri ng to de frau d C en tru m Fin an ci al Serv ic es Severa l defe ndants who had be en cha rg ed in ea rlier inca rnations of the indictment or 3 separ ately by information opted to plead guilty , including: a ppraiser J ulian Perez and his assistant J ere my Der cola; loan br okers Wendell Hig g s, Br ant Petree , Wesley Golden, and Mic hael F lake; rec ruiters Rashid Muhammad a nd Wil lam Chavis; straw buyer Cortne y J ackson; a

nd closing attorney s Chris Halcomb and Andr ew Wolf. Perez, Hig g s, Petree, Muha mmad, Chavis, Halcomb, a

nd Wolf all testified for the g overnme nt at trial. Apar t from the nine a

ppellants, defe ndants who we re na med in the third and fina l superse ding indictment include d: Hill associate Christopher B aker and straw

buyer Carl Be st, for whom arr est war

rants we re still outstanding at the time of trial; straw buyer Cher yl Denny and marke ting c onsultant J ames Moss, who we re a cquitted in this trial on Rul e 29 motions; recr uiter and straw buyer D ean T homas (brothe r of Da vid Thomas, an appe llant who was a lso a rec ruiter and straw buyer) , who was c onvicted in this trial but did not appeal; and straw buyer Annette Spear, who was seve red f rom this trial alongwith Graha m. 18in co nn ect io n wi th th e sa le of t he 27 lo ts in th e Cas cad e subd iv is io n t o t he

Alci nd or -Will ia m s Gro up in vi ol at io n o f 18 U.S.C. § 3 71 , andwith t hr ee subs ta nt iv e co un ts of wi re fraudin vi ol at io n o f 18 U.S.C. § 1 34 3. The thi rdgro up of c ha rg es be gi ns with C ou nt19 , whi ch ch arg edth atall of th e ap pe ll an ts co ns pi redwith e ach ot he r an d wi th Carl Bes t, An ne tt e Sp ear, Dean Tho m as , W il li am

Ch av is , Che ry l Den ny, Mich ael Flake , andGrah am to de frau d
va rio us m ortg ag e le nd ers in vi ol at io n o f 18 U.S.C. § 3 71 . Cou nt s 2 0 t hr ou gh 33 ch arg edth os e d efen dant s wi th m ak in g fa ls e st at em en ts to in flu en ce the cred it de ci si on of abankin vi ol at io n o f 18 U.S.C. § 1 01 4, wi th each ch arg e rel at in g t o th e p art ic ul ar m ortg ag e lo an s i n wh ic h e achde fen da ntwas i nv ol ve d. Co un ts 34 th ro ug h 3 8 c ha rg edsp eci fic in st an ces of m ai l fr au d re la te d t o m ortg ag e lo an s i n vi ol at io n o f 18 U.S.C. § 1 34 1, an d C ou nt s 3 9 t hr ou gh 48 ch arg edsp eci fic in st an ces of wi re fraudrel at edto m ortg ag e lo an s i n v io la ti on of 1 8 U.S.C. § 13 43
. Co un ts 49 th ro ug h 1 81 ch arg edm on ey lau nd eri ng rel at edto tra ns act io ns in vo lv in g t he pro ceed s o f th e fraud s al le ge d i n t he pri orco un ts of the in di ct m en t in vi ol at io n o f 18 U.S.C. §§ 19 56 an d 1 95 7. Fi na ll y , Cou nt s 1 82 th ro ug h 1 87 ch arg edad di ti on al co un ts of c red itap pl ic at io n fr au d re la te d t o m ortg ag e lo an s ob ta in edfro m

Fla gs ta r Ban k i n v io la ti on of 1 8 U.S.C. § 10 14
.

B. Pret ria l M ot io ns

19Alci nd or , Rect or , Van M ers be rg en , Mo ss , Davi d Th om as , Grah am , and

Ann et te Sp ear m ov edto sev er the ir c as es . The co urt g ran te d Gra ha m ’s m ot io n aft er fi nd in g t ha t h is in si st en ce o n p ro ceed in g p ro se wo ul d c au se de lay an d di st ract io n a t the m ai n t ria l. Itgra nt edSp ear’s m ot io n fo r a s ev eran ce b ecau se th e on ly evi de nc e o f he r in vo lv em en t s te m m edfro m he r pr io r rel at io ns hi p wi th Grah am . 4 Befo re tria l, a d is pu te aro se ov er Re ct or ’s pro fferag reem en t wh enth e go ve rn m en t m ov edin li m in e to ba r th e d efen da nt s fr om m en ti on in g i n t he ir op en in g s ta te m en ts th atth ey ha d t rie d t o c oo pe rat e b y m ak in g p ro ffer s an d t ha t t he go ve rn m en t o nl y

pro se cu te d t he m

be cau se itwas d is sa ti sf

ie d wi th whatth ey

ha d to say. Recto r res po nd edto th e g ov ern m en t’s m ot io n b y fil in g am ot io n i n l im in e of hi s o wn t o e nf

or ce the pa rt o f th e p ro fferag reem en t t ha t b arre d the go ve rn m en t fro m us in g p ro ffer -d eri ve d e vi de nc e ag ai ns t h im ex cep t i n l im it edcir cu m st an ces . Bec au se th e m ot io ns were fi le d ju stbe fo re tria l, the di stric t co urt o pt edto tak e th em un de r ad vi se m en t. C. Trial

The g overnme nt dropped a ll charg es ag ainst Spear be fore Gra ham went to trial. 4 Gra ham was c onvicted in a se para te trial and his appe al was c onsolidated with this one. In a separ ate opinion issued today , we a re a ffirmingGra

ham’s convic tion. See United States v. Gra ham, No. 08-14736, — F .3d — (11th Cir. J une 14, 2011). 20The ni ne ap pe ll an ts — Hil l, Al ci nd or , Powe rs , Laud erm il l, Van

Mer sb erg en , Farm er, Rec to r, Dav idTho m as , andBro wn — pl us DeanTho m as , Ch eryl Denn y , andJames Mo ss pl ead edno t g ui lt y an d wen t t o tria l. The tri al la st edfro m

Jan ua ry 16 th ro ug h M arch 14 , 20 07 . The g ov ern m en t’s ca se co ns is te d of 1,1 35 ex hi bi ts an d t he tes ti m on y (orst ip ul at io n abo utth e te st im on y ) of m or e th an10 0 wi tn es se s, s om e o f who m were co op erat in g c o- co ns pi rat or s. Oth ers were of fic ia ls or a ge nt s o f th e v ic ti m len de rs . An in ve st ig at in g a ge ntals o t es ti fie d t o pr ov id e, am on g o th er thi ng s, an ov erv ie w of t he cas e. The di stric t co urt wo rk edha rdto ke ep th e tr ia l fr om ge tt in g o utof c on tro l
an d c on su m in g e ve n m or e ti m e an d re so ur ces th anitdi d. Inth e in te res ts of effi ci en cy an d ju di ci al eco no m

y , th e co urt l im it edop en in g s ta te m en ts , so m et im es res tri ct edcro ss -ex am in at io n, urg edbo th si de s t o s ti pu la te to th e au th en ti ci ty of
va rio us reco rd s an d t o wh atlen de rs wou ldsay, andin th e p res en ce o f th e jury
en co ur ag edbo th th e p ro se cu ti on an d t he de fen se to “ m ov e o n.” In e xc ha ng e fo r th e d efen da nt s’ m ak in g re as on ab le an d app ro pr ia te st ip ul at io ns at t ria l i n o rd er t o st ream li ne th e p ro ceed in gs , th e co urt p ro m is edto rewardth ei r co op erat io n a t se nt en ci ng , andonat l eas t o ne oc cas io n t he co urt i nt im at edth atfai lu re t o d o s o m ig htlea d t o l es s fa vo rab le tre at m en t atsen te nc in g.

21At the en d o f th e g ov ern m en t’s ca se inch ie f, th e co urt h eardarg um en ts on

th e d efen da nt s’ Rul e 2 9 m ot io ns forjud gm en ts of a cqui tt al . Each d efen da ntwent in alp habe ti cal ord er, b eg in ni ng with Al ci nd or . The co urt g ran te d Al ci nd or ’s
m ot io n fo r acqui tt al on Co un ts 38 an d 9 4, ag reei ng with h im th atth e ev id en ce o n th os e co un ts po in te d o nl y to th e co m

pa ni es co nt ro ll edby A lc in do r an d Gra ha m an d d idno t s ho w Alci nd or ’s in di vi du al in vo lv em en t. The co urt g ran te d a 5 jud gm en t o f acqui tt al forCh eryl Denn y an d J am es Mo ss onall co un ts aft er co nc lu di ng th atth ere was in su ffi ci en t ev id en ce tha t t he ir i nv ol ve m en t i n t he
sc he m e was with kno wled ge of the frau d. Th e co urt d en ie d t he othe r de fen da nt s’ Ru le 29 m ot io ns . Andaft er re co ns id eri ng th e m at te r, th e co urt re ve rs edit s ea rli er ru li ng th atha d g ran te d Al ci nd or ’s m ot io n fo r acqui tt al on Co un ts 38 an d 9 4. Fo ll owi ng th e ru li ng s o n the ir Rul e 2 9 m ot io ns , th e d efen da nt s p res en te d
so m e ev id en ce an d wi tn es se s. Th e st rat eg y th atth ey pu rs ue d was to arg ue th at th ey act edin go odfai th an d l ack edan y cri m in al in te ntbe cau se th ey ha d n o i de a th atwhatth ey

were d oi ng was c riminal . Thatst rat eg y m ay have be enha m

pe red by the factth atno ne of t he de fen da nt s t oo k t he st an d. Nordi d t he y pre se nta

Both of those counts related to the August 2002 mortga g e loan tra nsaction on the house 5 at 105 B era cah Walk, a de al for which Gra ham had r ecr

uited Cortney

J ackson to a ct as a

straw buyer. Count 38 cha

rg ed mail fra

ud based on themailing of the dee d from the c ounty cler k’s office , and Count 94 charg ed money laundering f

or the wiringof loan proc eeds to the a ccount of Bristol Homes, a company controlled by

Alcindor a

nd Gra ham. 22un it edfro nt . The de fen da nt s wh o wer e Hil l’s as so ci at es an d s ub or di na te s p oi nt ed

th e fi ng er athi m , whi le Alci nd orbl am edGrah am , andHil l cl ai m edin no cen ce an d rel ia nc e o n t he advi ce o f co un se l as a de fen se . The jury was in st ru ct edon Marc h 5 , anditreturne d i ts ve rd ic t o n M arch 14 , 20 07 , fol lo win g e ig htda y s o f de li be rat io ns . The jury de li ve redsp li t v erd ic ts on Farm er, Hil l, Re ct or , andDeanTho m as , fin di ng th em gu il ty on s om e co un ts an d
no t g ui lt y on othe rs , whi le Alci nd or , Bro wn, Lau de rm il l, Po wers , Davi d Th om as , an d Van Mers be rg enwere fo un d g ui lt y on all co un ts . III. The Sev eran ce M ot io ns Iss ue s Befo re tria l, Po wers fil eda m ot io n fo r se ve ran ce b as edon , am on g o th er th in gs , ant ag on is ti c d efen se s. Rec to r an d VanMers be rg enals o fi le d m ot io ns for
se ve ran ce, co nt en di ng th atth ey sh ou ldbe tri edsep arat el y be cau se th ey

were ch arg edwith o nl y

on e o f th e th ree c on sp ira ci es all eg edin th e in di ct m en t. Alt ho ug h Al ci nd orm ad e n o m ot io n o f hi s o wn, h e d idad op t t he sev eran ce m ot io ns of c o- de fen da nt s R ect or , DeanTho m as , andJames Mo ss . The Th om as m ot io n s ta te d a s i ts gro un d ant ag on is ti c d efen se s, wh il e Mo ss ’ m ot io n c on te nd ed th atbe cau se th e ev id en ce i n h is cas e was th e sa m e as th atinRil ey Grah am ’s cas e he sh ou ldbe tri edwith Gra ha m , who was l ik el y to be gra nt eda se ve ran ce. 6 The district cour

t had indiciated that it was inc lined to grant a motion for se vera nce if 6 Gra ham should file one be cause Gra ham insisted on repre sentinghimself, which would have

23W e rev ie w a di st ric t co urt’s d en ia l o f a m ot io n fo r se ve ran ce o nl y foran ab us e o f di sc ret io n. Un it edSta te s v . Ram ire z, 42 6 F .3d13 44 , 13 53 (11 th Cir
. 20 05 ). In d et erm in in g wh ethe r a joi nttri al is ap pr op ria te , th e d is tri ctco urt m us t

“ba la nc e th e p reju di ce tha t a d efen da ntm ay su fferfro m

a joi nttri al , aga in stth e publ ic ’s in te res t i n ju di ci al eco no m y an d e ffi ci en cy .” Uni te d S ta te s v . Cro ss , 92 8 F.2 d 1 03 0, 1 03 7 (1 1t h C ir. 1 99 1) . W e are “ rel uc ta ntto rev ers e a d is tri ctco urt’s de ni al of s ev eran ce, p art ic ul arl y in co ns pi racy case s, as ge ne ral ly pers on s wh o a re ch arg edto ge th er s ho ul d a ls o b e tr ie d t og ethe r.” Uni te d S ta te s v . Kno wles , 66 F.3d 11 46 , 11 58 (11 th Cir . 19 95 ) (quo ta ti on m ark s o m it te d) . A dis tri ctco urt’s d en ia l of a se ve ran ce warr an ts rev ers al on ly if th e d efen da ntcande m on st rat e th atth e de ni al was a“ cl ear abu se of d is cret io n” an d t ha t as a res ul t h e su ffer ed

“ co m pe ll in g p reju di ce ag ai ns t wh ic h t he di stric t co urt co ul d o ffer no pro te ct io n.” Uni te d S ta te s v . W al se r, 3 F.3 d 3 80 , 38 5 (1 1t h C ir. 1 99 3)
. A def en da ntm ay

sh ow th athe su ffer edco m

pe ll in g p reju di ce b y

de m on st rat in g “ th atth e jury was un ab le to si ft t hr ou gh th e ev id en ce an d m ak e anin di vi du al iz edde te rm in at io n a s t o e ach de fen da nt .” Uni te d S ta te s v . Sch le i , 12 2 F .3d94 4, 9 84 (11 th Cir . 19 97 ) (quo ta ti on m ark s o m it te d)
. A. Rect or disrupted and slowe d down the trial of the other de fenda nts. 24Rec to r co nt en ds th atitwas a n abu se of d is cret io n n otto gra nthi m a se ve ran ce b ecau se th e in di ct m en t ch arg edth ree s ep arat e an d d is ti nc t co ns pi raci es , two of wh ic h d idno t i m

pl ic at e h im . Becau se th e o th er two co ns pi raci es di ffer ed in ti m e, in so m e o f th e p art ic ip an ts , andin factua l p art ic ul ars fro m th e res id en ti al
m ortg ag e fraudsch em e ch arg edag ai ns t h im in Co un t 1 9, h e arg ue s t ha t h is cas e was im pr op erl y joi ne d u nd er Fe de ral Ru le of C riminal Pro cedur e 8 (b ) an d s ho ul d ha ve be ensev eredun de r Ru le 14
. Ru le 8(b ) pr ov id es th at : “ The in di ct m en t o r in fo rm at io n m ay ch arg e 2 or m or e d efen da nt s i f th ey

are al le ge d t o h av e p art ic ip at edin th e sa m e actor tra ns act io n, o r in th e sa m e se rie s o f act s o r tr an sa ct io ns , con st itut in g a n o ffen se or of fen se s,” a ndth e “ de fen da nt s m ay be ch arg edin on e o r m or e co un ts to ge th er o r se pa rat el y ,” bu t the y

“ ne edno t b e ch arg edin each co un t.” Fe d. R. C rim. P. 8(b ). Alt ho ug h R ect orwas n otch arg edwith c rimes in co nn ect io n wi th two of t he th ree co ns pi raci es , th e Co un t 1 9 c on sp ira cy with wh ic h h e was ch arg edis th e b ig on e. He was actua ll y

ch arg edin two -th ird s o f th e co un ts (12 1 o f 18 7) in th e in di ct m en t. 7 Inan y ev en t, “ se pa rat e co ns pi raci es with d iff eren t m em

be rs hi ps m ay

st il l b e joi ne d i f th ey

are p artof t he same seri es of a ct s o r tr an sa ct io ns .” Uni te d S ta te s v .

Rector wa s charg ed in Counts 19, 20–33, 34–48, 63–94, and 129–187. 7 25W eav er, 9 05 F.2d14 66 , 14 76 (11 th Cir . 19 90 ) (quo ta ti on m ark s an d a lt erat io n

om it te d) . In thi s ca se th e th ree c on sp ira ci es an d t he va rio us subs ta nt iv e co un ts
arra y edaro un d t he m

were p ro pe rly j oi ne d b ecau se each of t he ch arg es aro se ou t o f Hil l’s m as te r sc he m e to de frau d l en de rs th ro ug h aco m m on pl anan d d es ig n. Th e factth atHil l u se d adi ffer en t s etof a ct or s t o p erfo rm th e th ree a ct s o f hi s p la y di d
no t tran sf orm itin to th ree d iff

eren t p la y s. Rect orha s al so fai le d t o d em on st rat e th athe su ffer edan y sp eci fic an d
co m pe ll in g p reju di ce fr om

th e co urt’s re fu sa l t o s ev er h is cas e fro m th atof h is co de fen da nt s. Mo stof t he ev id en ce tha t was in tro du cedat t ria l re la te d t o t he 12 1
co un ts with wh ic h h e was ch arg ed . Butev enif, as Rect orass ert s, the re h adbe en an“ en orm ou s d is parit y ” in th e am ou ntof e vi de nc e th atrel at edto ot he r de fen da nt s orch arg es co m

paredwith t he ev id en ce tha t re la te d t o h im , “ [a] defe nd an t d oe s n ot su fferco m

pe ll in g p reju di ce, s uf

fic ie ntto m an da te a se ve ran ce, s im pl y be cau se m uc h o f th e ev id en ce attri al is ap pl ic ab le on ly to co -d efen da nt s.” Sc hl ei , 12 2 F.3 d a t 9 84 (qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) . Alth ou gh th e d is tri ctco urt, i n t he in te res ts of effi ci en cy

an d ju di ci al eco no m

y , un de rs ta nd ab ly refus edto gi ve th e jury a
cu rat iv e in st ru ct io n e ve ry ti m e ev id en ce i rrel ev an t t o t he ch arg es ag ai ns t Re ct or was in tro du ced , th e co urt d idgi ve th e jury a clo si ng in st ru ct io n t ha t i t m us t

26co ns id er the ev id en ce s ep arat el y as t o e ach de fen da ntwith re sp ectto each ch arg e. 8 W e g en eral ly pres um e th atjuro rs fol lo w th ei r in st ru ct io ns . Greer v . Mil le r, 48 3 U.S. 75 6, 7 66 n.8 , 10 7 S .Ct. 3 10 2, 3 10 9 n .8 (1 98 7) ; Un it edSta te s v . Sto ne , 9 F.3 d 93 4, 9 38 (11 th Cir . 19 93 ). Mo re s pe ci fic al ly, we ap pl y “ th e stro ng pre su m

pt io n . . . th atjuro rs are ab le to co m pa rtmenta li ze ev id en ce b y res pe ct in g l im it in g in st ru ct io ns sp eci fy in g t he de fen da nt s ag ai ns t wh om th e ev id en ce m ay

be
co ns id ered .” Uni te d S ta te s v . Bla nk en sh ip , 38 2 F .3d11 10 , 11 23 (11 th Cir . 20 04 ). Evenwitho utpre su m

pt io ns , itis ob vi ou s t ha t t he jury fo ll owe d t he co urt’s in st ru ct io ns in th is cas e. Afte r de li be rat in g fo r ei gh t da y s, the jury acqui tt ed Rec to r of 25 of t he 12 1 c ha rg es ag ai ns t h im , a res ul t t ha t d em on st rat es th e car e wit h wh ic h t he jury si fte d t hr ou gh th e ev id en ce an d c on si de redth e ch arg es . See Uni te d S ta te s v . Bak er, 4 32 F.3d11 89 , 12 37 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ) (“ Inev al ua ti ng a
The district cour

t ga ve the f ollowing instruction re g ardingthe jury ’s consider ation of the 8 evidenc e as to e ach de fenda nt: Now, ladies and g entlemen, a separ ate crime or offe nse is charg ed ag ainst one or more of the defe ndan t s i n ea ch count of the indictment. Eac h charg e and the evidenc e per

taining to it should be consider ed sepa rate ly
. Also the case of eac h defe ndant s h ould be considere d separ ately and individually
. The fac t that you may find any one or more of the defe ndants guilty or n o t guilty of any of the offe nses charg ed should not aff ect your verdic t as t o an y offe nse or a

ny other de fenda

nt. I caution you, members of the j ury , that y o u are here to deter mine from the evidenc e in this case whether eac h defe ndant is guilty or not guilty
. Eac h defe ndant is on trial only

for the spe cific of

fense alleg ed in the indictment. 27jury’ s ab il it y to si ft t hr ou gh th e ev id en ce p res en te d a ndto m ak e in di vi du al iz ed in te rp ret at io ns of g ui lt , an app el la te co urt m ay co ns id er wh ethe r th e jury iss ue d a ‘spl it ’ ve rd ic t, fi nd in g g ui ltas t o s om e d efen da nt s o r ch arg es bu t n otas t o o th ers . Sp li t v erd ic ts weig h a ga in sta fi nd in g o f un du e ‘spi ll ov er.’”). The d is tri ctco urt di d n otab us e it s d is cret io n b y de nyin g R ect or ’s m ot io n fo r a s ev eran ce. B. Van M ers be rg en VanMers be rg enco nt en ds th atitwas a n abu se of d is cret io n fo r th e d is tri ct co urt n otto gra nthi s s ev eran ce m ot io n b ecau se he was p reju di cedby the di st ric t co urt’s ef fo rts to effe ct iv el y

m an ag e th e u nwi el dy tria l o f 12 de fen da nt s. Be fo re vo ir d ire , th e d is tri ctco urt d et erm in edth atth e g ov ern m en t wo ul d b e g iv en10 pe rem pt ory st rik es an d the de fen da nt s wo ul d b e co ll ect iv el y all ot te d 1 6, an d t he
co urt p erm it te d t he de fen da nt s t o d et erm in e th e m etho d t he y wou ldus e to ex erci se th os e st rik es . Whe n t he de fen da nt s fa il edto reac h a n a gr eem en t ab ou t t ha t, the
co urt al lo tt edon e st rik e to each of t he de fen da nt s an d t he n d is tri bu te d t he
rem ai ni ng fou r st rik es to th e d efen da nt s wh o wo ul d fi gu re m os t p ro m in en tl y in th e tri al : two t o Hi ll , on e to Farm er, an d o ne to Rect or . The di st ric t co urt t he n de vi se d arot at in g m etho d fo r ex erci si ng th e strik es un de r whi ch th e d efen da nt s wou ldex erci se two st rik es an d the go ve rn m en t o ne un ti l al l o f th e st rik es were us ed
. 28The di stric t co urt al so de ci de d t ha t i ns te adof p erm it ti ng co un se l fo r eac h o f

th e 1 2 d efen da nt s an d a n a tt orne y rep res en ti ng th e g ov ern m en t t o que st io n pr os pe ct iv e juro rs , th e co urt wo ul d d o the qu es ti on in g. Co un se l fo r eac h p arty was all owe d i np utin to th e que st io ns th atwou ldbe ask edan d a ls o a ll owe d t o su gg es t fo ll ow- up qu es ti on s. Op en in g s ta te m en ts were l im it edto acco m m od at e th e num be r of att orne y s i nv ol ve d. Each de fen da ntwas g iv en15 m in ut es , exc ep t fo r Po wers an d F arm er wh o wer e g iv en20 m in ut es each , Rect or who was g iv en30
m in ut es , andHil l wh o was gi ve n 4 5 m in ut es . VanMers be rg enarg ue s t ha t h e was pre jud ic edas ares ul t o f th e joi nttri al be cau se th e la rg e num

be r of de fen da nt s re su lt edin hi s p erem pt ory strik es be in g reduc edfro m

th e n orm al 10 to on ly 1; h is co un se l was no t al lo wedto qu es ti on pr os pe ct iv e juro rs di rect ly; hi s t im e fo r op en in g s ta te m en ts was re du ced ; h e was no t p erm it te d aful l o pp ortu ni ty to fu rth er d ev el op hi s B at so n c ha ll en ge ; an d o ne wit ne ss was a ll owe d t o t es ti fy th atwhen he he ardHil l’s s al es pi tc h (o ut si de th e pr es en ce o f VanMers be rg en ), th e wit ne ss ha d t ol d Hi ll th atwhathe was de sc rib in g was m ortg ag e fraud
. VanMers be rg endi d n otpro pe rly rais e al l o f th es e p reju di ce ar gu m en ts in th e d is tri ctco urt. He d idad op t t he m ot io ns of h is co -d efen da nt s, b utth ei r m ot io ns di d n otass ertth ata se ve ran ce was ne ces sa ry to av oi d a ll of t he types of 29pr ejud ic e th atVan M ers be rg enno w arg ue s t he di st ric t co urt s ho ul d h av e

co ns id ered . Ins te ad , th e co -d efen da nt s’ m ot io ns th atVan M ers be rg enad op te d
as se rte d o nl y

th ata fai lu re t o s ev er wo ul d re su ltin th ree t y pe s o f pr ejud ic e: reduc ti on in th e num

be r of pe rem pt ory st rik es each in di vi du al de fen da ntwas al lo tt ed , curta il m en t o f th e jury vo ir d ire th atm ig htot he rwis e o ccu r, an d a reduc ti on in th e ti m e g iv eneach de fen da ntfor op en in g s ta te m en ts . 9 The di stric t co urt d idno t ab us e it s d is cret io n b y co nc lu di ng th atth e in te res ts of e ffi ci en cy

an d ju di ci al eco no m

y ou twei gh edan y

pre jud ic e th atm ig ht be fal l Van Mers be rg enin a joi nttri al with h is co -d efen dant s. Alt ho ug h h e was no t al lo wedto in di vi du al ly exerc is e th e num be r of pe rem pt ory st rik es th athe
wou ldha ve ha d i f tr ie d s ep arat el y , Van M ers be rg enan d h is co -d efen da nt s wer e
Whil e our r eview pr obably should be limit ed to those three asser ted ty pes of pr ejudice, 9 we will addr ess the other

two here as we ll becauseVan Me rsber g en’s c ontentions about them clea rly are meritless. The f

irst is his argument that the district court’s f ailure to seve r re sulted in his inability

to further develop his B atson cha lleng e bec ause the court re fused to hea r fur ther argument from the de fenda nts after it ruled that they

had fa iled to make out a prima fac ie ca se of discrimination based on the g overnme nt’s use of its pere mptory strikes. Absent a prima fac ie case , a B atson claim fa ils, so the district cour t’s denial of theclaim rises or f alls on the corr ectne ss of its prima fac ie ca se ruling , which we will discuss in P art IV B of this opinion. There is no indication that the district court would have allowed a ny further argument on that issue if there had bee n few er de fenda nts, and Van Me rsberg en has not de scribed a ny additional arguments he would have made in the district cour t if he had be en g iven the opportunity to do so. Van Me rsber g en’s other

belated a ssertion of pre

judice involves the testimony of Paul McCoury , a loan of

fice r, that whe n he had de clined to par ticipate in a similar sche me that Hill had pitched to him in 1999, he told Hill that “what you’re describing to me is mortg ag e fr aud.” No one moved f

or a se vera

nce ba sed on that testimony and, in any

event, the district c ourt instructed the jury

that it was to consider the evidenc e sepa rate ly as to ea ch def

endant. See supra n.8. 30joi nt ly giv en16 strik es , whi chis m or e th anth e 1 0 s tri ke s n orm al ly allo tt edto a

de fen da ntor t o jo in tl y

tri edde fen da nt s u nd er Ru le 24 (b )(2 ) of th e Fed eral Ru le s of Cri m in al Pro cedur e. The re i s n o c on st itut io na l ri gh t t o p erem pt ory st rik es , Ri ve ra v . Ill in oi s, _

__ , U.S. __

_, 1 29 S.Ct . 14 46 , 14 53 (20 09 ), an d t he rot at io nsh ari ng m etho d u se d fo r th e ex erci se of t he de fen da nt s’ join t s tri ke s i n t hi s ca se is si m il ar t o o ne th atwe ap pr ov edin Uni te d S ta te s v . Rom ero , 78 0 F .2d98 1, 9 84 (1 1t h C ir. 1 98 6) (up ho ld in g adi st ric t co urt’s u se of s ix rot at in g ro un ds of pe rem pt ory ch al le ng es in a cas e in vo lv in g m ul ti pl e d efen da nt s)
. As fo r th e at to rn ey s n otbe in g a ll owe d t o d ire ct ly que st io n the ve ni re m em be rs , a di stric t co urt h as di sc ret io n abo utho w to co nduc t v oi r di re, i nc lu di ng whe th er t o h av e co un se l s ub m itqu es ti on s i n wri ti ng . Uni te d S ta te s v . Bro ok s, 6 70 F.2 d 1 48 , 15 2 (1 1t h C ir. 1 98 2) . The s am e g oe s fo r th e am ou ntof t im e al lo tt edfor op en in g s ta te m en ts . Uni te d S ta te s v . Ziel ie , 73 4 F .2d14 47 , 14 55 (11 th Cir
. 19 84 ), ab ro ga te d o n o th er g ro un ds by Bou rjail y v. Un it edSta te s, 4 83 U.S. 17 1, 17 7– 79 , 10 7 S .Ct. 2 77 5, 2 77 9– 80 (19 87 ), as reco gn iz edin Uni te d S ta te s v . Ch es ta ng , 84 9 F .2d52 8, 5 31 (11 th Cir . 19 88 ). Van M ers be rg enha s fa il edto co nv in ce u s t ha t the di st ric t co urt ab us edit s d is cret io n i n t ak in g t he reas on ab le st ep s i t d idto m an ag e th e d iff ic ul ti es pre se nt edby tria l o f a cas e o f th is m ag ni tu de ,

31co ns id eredeit he r ap artfro m or i n t he co nt ex t o f th e d en ia l o f hi s m ot io n fo r se ve ran ce. VanMers be rg enals o i ns is ts th atbe cau se he was c harg edwith o nl y on e o f th e th ree c on sp ira ci es hi s due pro ces s ri gh ts were v io la te d b y th e joi nttri al
. Alt ho ug h h e was ch arg edas p artof t he bi g C ou nt19 co ns pi racy, V anMers be rg en was nam edin on ly 14 o f th e co un ts , whi ch in vo lv edon ly thre e o f th e p ro pe rti es . To the ex te ntth athe cla im s h e was a vi ct im of “ sp il lo ve r” p reju di ce o r tra ns fere nc e o f gu il t, h owe ve r, hi s cl ai m fai ls forth e sa m e rea so n a s R ect or ’s. Whi le th ere was les s ev id en ce re le va ntto th e ch arg es ag ai ns t Van Mers be rg en th anto all of t he ch arg es ag ai ns t h is co -d efen dant s, tha t fa ctis no t en ou gh to de m on st rat e co m

pe ll in g p reju di ce. If i t wer e en ou gh , inev ery joi nttri al th e de fen da ntfaci ng th e fewes t ch arg es with t he lea stam ou ntof e vi de nc e wou ldbe
au to m at ic al ly ent it le d t o asev eran ce. The n, t he ne xtde fen da ntlef t wh o fa cedth e fewes t ch arg es an d l eas t am ou ntof e vi de nc e wou ldbe auto m at ic al ly ent it le d t o a se ve ran ce, an d s o o n, u nt il on ly one or afew d efen da nt s re m ai ne d i n t he tri al
. Tha t cann otbe , anditis no t, the law. Eve n t ho ug h Van Mers be rg enwas c on vi ct edon all 14 co un ts ag ai ns t h im , th e fac t tha t the jury returne d s pl itve rd ic ts ag ai ns t s om e o f hi s co -d efen da nt s sh ows it s ab il it y

to sep arat e o utth e ch arg es an d e vi de nc e. A def en da ntcan no t 32de m on st rat e th athe su ffer edco m pe ll in g p reju di ce m erel y

be cau se th e jury ul ti m at el y

co nc lu de d t ha t h e was gu il ty as ch arg ed . For a ll of t he se reas on s, the di st ric t co urt d idno t err by den y in g t he sev eran ce m ot io ns of Va n M ers be rg enor th os e o f hi s co -d efen dant s t ha t h e was de em edto ha ve ad op te d. C. Alci nd or Alci nd orpre se nt s u s wi th th e n ov el th eo ry th atth e d is tri ctco urt ab us edit s di sc ret io n b y

refu si ng to sev er h im

fro m th e joi nttri al so th athe co ul d b e tr ie d to ge th er wi th Grah am , who ha d b een gra nt eda se ve ran ce. Alc in do r’s co nt en ti on is th atitvi ol at eddu e p ro ces s t o t ry hi m sep arat el y

fro m Grah am , bec au se th at pe rm it te d t he go ve rn m en t t o a dv an ce i n t he two tri al s i nc on si st en t p os it io ns reg ard in g t he cu lp ab il it y

of t he two m enforth e fraudon Cen tru m Ban k. Th ere a re a num be r of reas on s tha t co nt en ti on do es no t en ti tl e h im to a ne w tri al
. Fi rs t, Al ci nd or

fai le d t o a ss ertth e p ot en ti al forin co ns is te ntpro se cu ti on th eo rie s as a gr ou ndfora se ve ran ce i n t he di st ric t co urt. He d idno t fi le hi s o wn se ve ran ce m ot io n b utin st eadad op te d t ho se of t hr ee o f hi s co -d efen da nt s, n on e o f who m ass ert edth atsev eran ce s ho ul d b e g ran te d t o p erm itth e m ov an t t o b e tr ie d wit h Gra ha m

in ord er t o fo recl os e th e p os si bi li ty of th e g ov ern m en t p ur su in g in co ns is te ntth eo rie s o f gu il t. We will no t h ol d t ha t t he di st ric t co urt ab us edit s di sc ret io n i n fa il in g t o g ran t a s ev eran ce o n agro un d t ha t was ne ve r br ou gh t t o i ts 33at te nt io n. Th e b es t tha t Al ci nd oris en ti tl edto is pl ai n e rro r rev ie w, andth e fai lu re

to gra nta se ve ran ce i n t he se cir cu m st an ces do es no t qua li fy as p la in erro r by any st ret ch of t he im ag in at io n. Fo r on e th in g, Al ci nd or ’s con te nt io n s uf fers fro m a fu nd am en ta l fl aw. The la stsev eran ce m ot io n was de ni edin th is cas e in Decem be r of 20 06 , th e tr ia l i ts el f
was ov er i n M arch of 2 00 7, an d Gra ha m ’s tri al di d n otbe gi n u nt il Feb ru ary of 20 08 . At th e ti m e th e d is tri ctco urt d en ie d t he sev eran ce m ot io ns in th is cas e, ne it he r Alc in do r no r an y on e el se ha d s ug ge st edth atth e g ov ern m en t m ig htpu rs ue in co ns is te ntth eo rie s o f pr os ecu ti on in Alci nd or ’s andGrah am ’s tri al s, an d t he re was no reas on to be li ev e th atitwou ld . W e d o n otrequi re tha t tria l co urts be cl ai rv oyantan d g ran t m ot io ns on gro un ds no t as se rte d b ecau se of e ve nt s t ha t h av e no t yet happ en ed . Ins te ad , th ey m ay tre atas g os pe l t he ag e-o ldadvi ce t o t ak e “ no th ou gh t fo r th e m orro w: fo r th e m orro w sh al l t ak e th ou gh t fo r th e th in gs of i ts el f. Su ffi ci en t u nt o t he da y

is th e ev il th ereo f.” Mat th ew 6: 34 (Kin g J am es ). Eve n p ut ti ng asi de th atfat al fla w inAlci nd or ’s po si ti on , andass um in g fo r pr es en t p ur

po se s t ha t tria l co urts ha ve a du ty to fo res ee the futur e, itis no t atall pl ai n t ha t a d efen da ntha s a r ig htto pre ve ntth e p ro se cu ti on fro m us in g in co ns is te ntth eo rie s t o p ro se cu te two sep arat el y tri edde fen da nt s ch arg edwith t he
sa m e cri m e. InPark er v . Sin gl et ary, 97 4 F .2d15 62 , 15 77 –7 8 (1 1t h C ir. 1 99 2) , we 34reject eda cl ai m th atth e p ro se cu ti onvi ol at eddu e p ro ces s b y arg ui ng at t he de fen da nt ’s tri al th athe was t he tri gg erm anwhi le fai li ng to di sc lo se to hi m th atit ha d a rg ue d i n t he sep arat edtri al s o f hi s t wo co -d efen da nt s t ha t ea ch on e o f th em ha d b een th e tr ig ge rm an . W e st res se d t ha t t he pro se cu ti onin th os e cas es di d n ot us e “ ne ces sa ril y

co nt rad ic to ry

ev id en ce,” a nd“ th e o nl y in co ns is te nc y

was i n t he st at e’s al te rn at iv e arg um en ts ” ab ou t wh atin fere nc e th e jury sho ul d d raw fro m th e sa m e ev id en ce. Id . at 1 57 8; see als o B rad sh aw v. Stum pf , 54 5 U.S. 1 75 , 19 0, 1 25 S.Ct . 23 98 , 24 09 –1 0 (2 00 5) (Tho m as , J., co nc urrin g) (“ Thi s C ou rt h as ne ve r hi nt ed , m uc h l es s h el d, t ha t the Due P ro ces s C laus e p rev en ts a St at e fro m pr os ecu ti ng de fen dant s b as edon in co ns is te ntth eo rie s.”) ; Fo to po ul os v. Se c., Dep ’t of Co rr., 51 6 F .3d12 29 , 12 34 –3 5 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 8) (co nc lu di ng th ata ho ld in g t ha t the pre se nt at io n o f in co ns is te ntth eo rie s atth e tr ia l o f two de fen da nt s ch arg edwith t he same crim e d idno t v io la te du e p ro ces s was no t co nt rary to cl earl y est ab li sh edlaw)
. Lik ewis e, th ere was no “ ne ces sa ril y co nt rad ic to ry

ev id en ce” i n t he two tri al s in vo lv edhe re. Inth e tr ia l o f th is cas e, as Alci nd orpo in ts ou t, the go ve rn m en t
m ad e li tt le m en ti on of Gra ha m in it s o pe ni ng an d c lo si ng st at em en ts , bu t t ha t i s un de rs ta nd ab le si nc e Grah am was n oton e o f th e d oz ende fen da nt s o n t ria l. At n o ti m e dur in g t hi s t ria l d idth e g ov ern m en t ev er t ak e th e p os it io n t ha t Gra ha m was 35no t g ui lt y

of t he Cen tru m

Ban k fr au d, an d a t n o t im e dur in g t he lat er tria l o f Grah am di d the go ve rn m en t ev er t ak e th e p os it io n t ha t Al ci nd orwas n otgu il ty of it . In fa ct , du rin g t he pre se nttri al sev eral go ve rn m en t wi tn es se s t es ti fie d t o Grah am ’s gu il t, an d dur in g Gra ha m ’s tri al sev eral tes ti fie d t o Al ci nd or ’s gu il t. The go ve rn m en t’s co ns is te ntpo si ti on in bo th tri al s was th atbo thAlci nd oran d Grah am were g ui lt y

of t he Cen tru m

Ban k fr au d c ou nt s. Alcin do r’s arg um en t tha t t he go ve rn m en t t oo k i nc on si st en t p os it io ns fo cu se s o n t he tes ti m on y

of Qu ia nn a Wasle r, Grah am ’s lo ng -ti m e g irl fri en d, i n t he two tri al s. Alc in do r cl ai m s t ha t i n t hi s t ria l h e was un ab le to su ccee d wi th hi s de fen se of n o c riminal in te ntbe cau se go ve rn m en t wi tn es se s s uc h a s Wasl er te st ifi edto hi s p ers on al pa rti ci pa ti on in sev eral co m po ne nt s o f th e fraudag ai ns t Cen tru m Fin an ci al . Accor di ng to Alci nd or , lat er atGrah am ’s tri al th e g ov ern m en t us edW as le r’s te st im on y

to po in t t he fin ge r atGrah am who ha d d ire ct edhe r to pa rti ci pa te in th e fraud , andby doi ng th atth e g ov ern m en t was m ak in g e ss en ti al ly th e sa m e p oi ntth atAlci nd orha d s ou gh t t o e st ab li sh inhi s t ria l — th atGrah am m an ip ul at edAlci nd oran d o th ers in to be co m in g u nwi tt in g p art ic ip an ts in hi s frau du le ntsch em e. T he factis , ho wev er, tha t Wasl er t es ti fie d c on si st en tl y in bo th tri al s. Sh e to ldbo th juri es th at : Grah am di rect edhe r to fal si fy

pa y stub s an d W-2 fo rm s i n 36th e n am es of s tra w bu y ers forth e Cen tru m lo anpa ck ag e; sh e an d Gra ha m

“ in fla te d” it em s o n Al ci nd or ’s per so na l fi na nc ia l s ta te m en t; an d s he an d Gra ha m fal si fie d c as hi er’s ch eck s m ad e o utto Alci nd oran d t he Alci nd or -Will ia m s Gro up . W as le r’s te st im on y

at b oth t ria ls im

pl ic at edAlci nd oran d Gra ha m to ge th er i n t he frau d o n C en tru m . She tes ti fie d t ha t b ot h o f th em were p res en t atth e cl os in gs for th e st raw p ur ch as es of C as cad e lo ts , andth atth ey bo th ass is te d t hr ee s traw bu y ers in fal si fy in g t he pu rch as es of p re-e xi st in g h om es in ord er t o fi na nc e th e p ur ch as e of th e Cas cad e subd iv is io n b y th e Alc in do r-Will ia m s Gro up . Oth er m at te rs th atAlci nd orco ns id ers st arkin co ns is te nc ie s b etweenth e ev id en ce atth e two tri al s ar e eas il y un de rs to odin th e co nt ex t o f th e se pa rat e tr ia ls , th e d iff eren t d efen da nt s, an d t he in ev it ab le di ffer en ce i n que st io ns ask edof t he wit ne ss es . How far Al ci nd orst rai ns to fin d s om e d iff eren ces is ap pa ren t fr om

hi s us e o f te st im on y

ab ou t wh ethe r bo th he an d Gra ha m were p res en t atso m e o f th e cl os in gs . For e xa m

pl e, in th is tri al of Al ci nd orth e g ov ern m en t o ffer edtes ti m on y th athe an d Gra ha m

were b oth p res en t atth e cl os in gs in vo lv in g t he Alci nd or W il li am s Gro up , th us un de rm in in g Al ci nd or ’s def en se th athe was o utof t he
co un try at th os e ti m es . He arg ue s t ha t t he tes ti m on y he was p res en t atth os e cl os in gs is in co ns is te ntwith wh atMi ch ael Key “ m ad e cl ear” in hi s t es ti m on y at 1 0 Key was a former closingattorney

who testified for

the g overnme nt at Gra

ham’s trial 1 0 about his own involvement in mortga g e fr aud tra nsactions and how the fra ud ty pically worke d. 37Grah am ’s tri al , whi ch is th aton ly Grah am was p res en t atth e cl os in gs on be ha lf o f th e Alc in do r-Will ia m s Gro up . The rec or d s ho ws, h owe ve r, th atKey actua ll y adm it te d dur in g h is tes ti m on y at Gra ha m ’s tri al th atin ad di ti on to Grah am “ [t]he re co ul d h av e b eenot he rs ” p res en t. The go ve rn m en t’s co ns is te ntth eo ry was t ha t b ot h Al ci nd oran d Graha m were g ui lty

to th e g il ls of t he Cen tru m Ban k fr au d c harg es ag ai ns t the m , andth e ev id en ce atbo th tri al s s up po rte d t ha t p os it io n. We can no t s ay , to bo rro w a few ke y word s fr om

anEig ht h C irc ui t o pi ni on , th atth e g ov ern m en t u se d “ in he ren tl y factua ll y co nt rad ic to ry

th eo rie s” an d ch an ge d t he co lo r of it s s tri pe s fr om

on e tr ia l to th e n ex t b y

adva nc in g a n “ in co ns is te nc y . . . atth e co re o f th e p ro se cu to r’s [s ep arat e] case s ag ai ns t d efen da nt s fo r th e sa m e cri m e.” Sm it h v . Groo se , 20 5 F.3 d 1 04 5, 1 05 2 (8 th Cir . 20 00 ). Far fro m it
. So , Alci nd or

lo se s o n t he sev eran ce i ss ue be cau se he fai le d t o ra is e in th e di st ric t co urt the in co ns is te ntpro se cu ti on th eo rie s an d e vi de nc e g ro un d t ha t h e no w ass ert s; be cau se we do no t re qu ire di st ric t co urts to for et el l tha t t he pr os ecu ti on th eo ry

or e vi de nc e in a fu tu re tria l o f a co -d efen da ntwil l b e d iff eren t fro m whatitis in th e tr ia l the n b efo re the co urt; be cau se itis no t p la in th at in co ns is te ntpro se cu ti on th eo rie s an d e vi de nc e wou ldvi ol at e a d efen da nt ’s rig ht s; an d b ecau se , eve n i f th ey wou ld , Alci nd orha s n otsh ownin co ns is te nc y he re. 38D. Power s

Po wers , who act edas am ortg ag e b ro ke r in so m e o f th e tr an sa ct io ns , co nt en ds th atitwas a n abu se of d is cret io n fo r th e d is tri ctco urt n otto gra nthi s m ot io n fo r a s ev eran ce o n t he gro un d o f an ta go ni st ic de fen se s. Part o f hi s d efen se was th athe was a n i nn oc en t p art ic ip an t wh o h adbe endupe d b y th e st raw b uyers, whi le th e d efen se of t he st raw b uyer de fen da nt s was th atth ey th em se lv es ha d b een un wit ti ng pa rti ci pa nt s wh ic h, i f true , wou ldrul e o utth ei r dupi ng Po wers or an y on e el se . After t he co urt re st ric te d apo rti on of P owe rs ’ cro ss -ex am in at io n o f W ayne Jen ki ns , he r en ewedhi s m ot io n fo r se ve ran ce, an d h e was joi ne d b y Den ny, one of t he st raw b uyer de fen da nt s. The law i s t ha t d efen da nt s i nd ic te d t og ethe r ge ne ral ly sho ul d b e tr ie d to ge th er; th e fac t tha t a d efen da nt ’s cha nc es of a cqui tt al are m at eri al ly bet te r in
se pa rat e tr ia ls is no t en ou gh ; a d efen dantis no t en ti tl edto a se ve ran ce m erel y be cau se of ant ag on is ti c o r m utua ll y ex cl us iv e d efen se s; an d ade fen dantm us t sh ow t ha t t he joi nttri al cau se d h im su ch co m

pe ll in g p reju di ce tha t h e was de pr iv edof afai r tr ia l. Zafi ro v. Un it edSta te s, 5 06 U.S. 53 4, 5 37 –4 1, 1 13 S.Ct
. 93 3, 9 37 –3 9 (1 99 3) ; s ee al so Bla nk en sh ip , 38 2 F .3dat 1 12 5 (“ The Supr em e Co urt ha s h el d t ha t co -d efen da nt s d o n otsu fferpre jud ic e si m

pl y be cau se on e co -d efen da nt ’s def

en se di rect ly inc ul pa te s an ot he r, oritis lo gi cal ly im po ss ib le for 39a jury to b el ie ve bo th co -d efen da nt s’ def en se s.”) . Power s cl earl y

ha s n otm ad e th atsh owi ng . As we sa idof t he two ap pe ll an ts inth e Bl an ke ns hi p c as e, “ [a]si de fro m po in ti ng ou t the ir m

utua ll y an ta go ni st ic de fen se s, h owe ve r, ne it he r . . . ha[s ] sh own ho w th e joi nttri al pre jud ic edth em

in an y othe r le ga ll y

co gn iz ab le way .” Id . There was n o abu se of d is cret io n i n d en y in g P owe rs ’ m ot io n fo r a s ev eran ce. IV. Jury Sel ect io n Is su es VanMers be rg enco nt en ds th atth e d is tri ctco urt erredby notpe rm it ti ng th e pr os pe ct iv e juro rs to be ask eddu rin g v oi r di re ab ou t ea ch of t he witne ss es who
wou ldtes ti fy

du rin g the tri al
. All of t he ap pe ll an ts co nt en d t ha t t he di st ric t co urt 1 1
erre d i n n otgra nt in g t he ir B at so n v . Kentuc ky, 476 U.S. 79 , 10 6 S .Ct. 1 71 2 (1 98 6) , ob

jecti on to th e g ov ern m en t’s u se of i ts pe rem pt ory st rik es . A. Fail ur e to Askth e Ven ire Abo utAll Gov ern m en t Witn es se s Ju ry sel ect io n t oo k p la ce dur in g t wo d ay s. As part o f it s ef fo rt t o s tre am li ne an d e ffec ti ve ly m an ag e a tria l i nv ol vi ng so m an y de fen da nt s an d a tt orne y s, the di st ric t co urt d eci de d t ha t m em be rs of the jury ve ni re wo ul d b e as ke d abo utth ei r fam il ia rit y

with o nl y

th e m os t i m

po rta ntwitne ss es . To th aten d, t he co urt d ire ct ed His contention and a

rguments about this are a dopted by five other

appellants: B rown, 1 1 Fa rmer, H ill, L auder

mill, and Powers. David Thomas a lso attempts to adopt this argument, but he ca nnot do so. He ente red into a post-convic tion agree ment with the g overnme nt in which he re ceive d the bene fit of a U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1 substantial assistance motion. In return, T homas agree d to and did waive his right to appea l issues relatingto his conviction. 40bo th th e p ro se cu ti on an d the de fen da nt s t o s ub m itli st s o f eac h s id e’s 10 m os t

im po rta ntwitne ss es to be publ is he d t o t he ve ni re i ns te adof t he na m es of the 18 5
orso po te nt ia l wi tn es se s o n t he ir l is ts . Perh ap s as a res ul t, the pro sp ect iv e juro rs were n otask edif t he y kn ew a go ve rn m en t wi tn es s n am edBren daSte wart . Early in t he tri al Ste warttes ti fie d 1 2 th atsh e an d h er b ro th er h adne go ti at edwith Hi ll for he r br ot he r to bu y

on e o f th e co m pl et edho us es in th e Cas cad e subd iv is io n a ndfora ne w ho us e to be bu il t fo r he rs el f an d h er m ot he r on on e o f th e em pt y lo ts . Befo re tho se ne go ti at io ns co ul d be co m pl et ed , ho wev er, St ewartsh ift edto de al in g wi th Alci nd oran d Gra ha m who ha d p ur ch as edth e Cas cad e subd iv is io n fr om Hil l t hr ou gh th e Alc in do r-Will ia m s Gro up . Stewa rt t es ti fie d t ha t dur in g t he co ur se of t he ir d eal in gs sh e an d h er br ot he r pa id$2 5,0 00 in earn es t m on ey to Hil l an d a no th er $ 7,5 00 to th e Alc in do rW il li am s Gro up , m on ey

whi ch sh e was ne ve r ab le to reco ve r aft er s he lea rn edth at ne it he r sh e n or

he r br ot he r wou ldrece iv e th e h ou se s t he y ha d c on tra ct edto bu y . Sh ortl y aft er St ewartwas c al le d t o t es ti fy , th e co urt i nt errupt edth e go ve rn m en t’s ex am in at io n t o a skSte wartif s he were ac qu ai nt edwith R os em ary Bu rto n. Bu rto n was on e o f th e al te rn at e juro rs , andsh e h adap paren tl y ale rte d a
co urt s ecu rit y

off ic er tha t s he kn ew St ewart . Defen se co un se l fo r Farm er an d We say “per haps as a result” be cause we a

re una ble to locate the name “ Br enda 1 2 Stewart” on the lists of potential witnesses contained in the r ecor d. 41Bro wn co m

pl ai ne d t ha t i f St ewart ’s rel at io ns hi p wi thBu rto n h adbe enrev eal ed earl ie r du rin g v oi r di re, the de fen da nt s co ul d h av e u se d ape rem pt ory st rik e to rem ov e h er. The co urt que st io ne d B urto n o ut si de th e p res en ce o f th e o th er jur or s, bu t i n o pe n c ou rt, re ga rd in g h er re la ti on sh ip with S te wart . Burto n s ta te d t ha t t he y worke d i n d iff

eren t d ep art m en ts an d o n d iff eren t fl oo rs of the So ci al Secu rit y Adm in is tra ti on , andth atth ey were ac qu ai nt an ces who ha d i nt erac te d o nl y ona li m it edba si s. Bu rto n a ss ur edth e co urt t ha t s he wou ldno t g iv e an y ad di ti on al weig htto Ste wart ’s tes ti m on y an d t ha t kno win g S te wartwou ldha ve no effe cton he r ab il it y

to serve as afai r an d i m

pa rti al juro r. The co urt fo un d t ha t Bu rto n c ou ldbe fai r an d i m pa rti al , andno de fen da nt as ke d t ha t s he be rem ov edfro m th e jury. Nev erthe le ss , Van M ers be rg enco nt en ds th atth e co urt em

pa ne le d ajury in vi ol at io n o f hi s co ns ti tu ti on al rig htto a fai r tr ia l by seat in g B urto n, wh o h e arg ue s s ho ul d h av e b een st ru ckforcau se an d wo ul d ha ve be enif t he co urt h adpe rm it te d t he ve ni re t o b e as ke d abo utall of t he na m es on th e wit ne ss li st . Van M ers be rg enfurth er co nt en ds th atth e d is tri ctco urt ab rid ge d h is rig htto ex erci se hi s p erem pt ory ch al le ng es by fail in g t o s ho w th e jury
a co m pl et e li stof wi tn es se s. He s ay s t ha t i f th e d is tri ctco urt h addo ne so , th e rel at io ns hi p b etweenBu rto n a ndSte wartwou ldhave co m e to li gh t, an d Van Mer sb erg enwou ldhave us edon e o f hi s p erem pt ory ch al le ng es to st rik e Bu rto n 42fro m

th e jury. Alt ern at iv el y , he a rg ue s t ha t ev enif t he em pa ne le d ju ry

was fa ir
an d i m pa rti al , rev ers ib le erro r oc cu rredwhen th e g ov ern m en t dur in g i ts clo si ng arg um en ts m en ti on edSte wart , bu t n otot he r “ in ve st or s,” b y na m e. Actu al ly, wha t th e g ov ern m en t d idin it s cl os in g was m en ti on Ste wart ’s nam e al on g wi th th e na m es of a ll of t ho se who were i nv ol ve d i n t he Cas cad e/ Cen tru m frau d wh enit
was di sc us si ng th e d et ai ls of t ha t fr au d.

“ The m etho d o f co nduc ti ng th e v oi r di re i s l eftto th e so un d d is cret io n o f th e tri al co urt an d wi ll be up he ldun le ss anab us e o f di sc ret io n i s fo un d.” Uni te d St at es v. Vera , 70 1 F .2d13 49 , 13 55 (11 th Cir . 19 83 ). It i s wel l es tabl is he d t ha t

“ [t]he vo ir d ire co nduc te d b y th e tr ia l co urt n eedon ly pro vi de reas on ab le
as su ran ce tha t p reju di ce wi ll be di sc ov eredif p res en t.” Id . (ci ta ti on an d quo ta ti on m ark s o m it te d) . Any

erro r in vo lv in g B urto n’s s erv ic e o n the jury is subjec t t o rev ie w on ly for p la in erro r be cau se no de fen da ntob jecte d t o h er co nt in ue d s erv ic e, as ke d t ha t s he be qu es ti on edfurth er, o r to okis su e wit h the co urt’s fi nd in g t ha t s he
co ul d b e fai r an d i m

pa rti al . Uni te d S ta te s v . Raad , 40 6 F .3d13 22 , 13 23 (11 th Cir
. 20 05 ) (“ Whe n ade fen da ntfai ls to ob ject t o a n e rro r be fo re the di st ric t co urt, we rev ie w th e arg um en t fo r pl ai n e rro r.”). Bu rto n’s co nt in ue d p res en ce o n t he jury co ul d n otha ve be enerro r — m uc h le ss pl ai n e rro r — b ecau se sh e d idno t s iton th e fi na l jury th atren de redth e v erd ic t 43in th is cas e. Eve n i f VanMers be rg enco ul d c on vi nc e u s t ha t Bu rto n was bi as ed

an d s ho ul d h av e b een ex cl ud edfro m th e jury, he can no t p ro ve th athe was pr ejud ic edby the di st ric t co urt’s fa il ur e to ex cl ud e h er b ecau se Bu rto n was an al te rn at e juro r who ne ve r pa rti ci pa te d i n the jury’ s d el ib erat io ns . She co ul d n ot 1 3 ha ve ha d a ny effecton th e v erd ic ts in th e cas e. Fu rth erm or e, VanMers be rg enha s fai le d t o c it e to an y

au th or it y de m on st rat in g t ha t a d is tri ctco urt ab us es it s di sc ret io n b y

fai li ng to publ is h t he go ve rn m en t’s co m pl et e li stof wi tn es se s t o t he
ve ni re. W e are sat is fie d t ha t the di st ric t co urt d idno t ab us e it s d is cret io n b y di sc lo si ng to th e v en ire a li stth atin cl ud ed41 co rp or at e v ic ti m s, 8 affe ct ed
co nd om in iu m

co m pl ex es , andth e g ov ern m en t’s 1 0 m os t i m po rta ntwitne ss es , bu t fai le d t o i nc lu de Burto n. VanMers be rg en ’s con te nt io n t ha t t he co urt’s fa il ur e to askth e v en ire ab ou t al l o f th e witne ss es , in cl ud in g S te wart , abr id ge d h is rig htto ex erci se a pe rem pt ory st rik e ag ai ns t Bu rto n fa il s fo r si m il ar rea so ns . Sin ce Bu rto n d idno t s erv e o n t he jury thatco nv ic te d h im , Van M ers be rg enwas n otha rm edby the factth athe di d
no t s tri ke he r fro m

th e jury. In st ead , he g ai ne d t he op po rtu ni ty to u se th atst rik e ag ai ns t an ot he r ve ni re m em be r. B. The B at so n Is su e When the jury

was polled a fter r endering its ver dict, Bur ton’s name wa s not called. 1 3 44All of t he ap pe ll an ts co nt en d t ha t t he go ve rn m en t i m pr op erl y us edit s pe rem pt ory st rik es to rem ov e b la ckjuro rs on th e b as is of t he ir r ace, a ndth atth e di st ric t co urt erredin de nyin g t he ir c ha ll en ge of t he go ve rn m en t’s s tri ke s u nd er Bat so n v . Kentuc ky, 476 U.S. 79 , 10 6 S .Ct. 1 71 2 (1 98 6) . Thatde ci si on , of c ou rs e, es tabl is he d t ha t the Equ al Pro te ct io n C laus e fo rb id s t he ex erci se of p erem pt ory jury stri ke s o n t he ba si s o f rac e. InBat so n andit s p ro ge ny, the Supr em e Co urt la idou t a t hr ee-p artin qu iry for d eci di ng whet he r a p arty ’s strik es were m ot iv at ed by race. Id . at 9 7– 98 , 10 6 S .Ct. at17 23 –2 4; see als o S nyder v . Lou is ia na , 55 2 U.S. 47 2, 4 76 –7 7, 1 28 S.Ct . 12 03 , 12 07 (20 08 ), Jo hn so n v . Cal ifo rn ia , 54 5 U.S. 16 2, 1 68 , 12 5 S .Ct. 2 41 0, 2 41 6 (2 00 5)
. Fi rs t, the di st ric t co urt m

us t d et erm in e whe th er the pa rty chal le ng in g t he st rik es ha s es tabl is he d apri m a fac ie cas e b y sh owi ng fact s s uf

fic ie ntto supp ort an in fere nc e o f di sc riminat ory m ot iv e. Jo hn so n, 5 45 U.S. at 1 70 , 12 5 S .Ct. at24 17 ; Uni te d S ta te s v . Ocho a-Vas qu ez, 4 28 F.3d10 15 , 10 38 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ). If a p rima faci e sh owi ng is m ad e, Bat so n’s s eco ndst ep requi res th e st rik in g p arty to off er a race -n eu tra l ex pl an at io n fo r it s s tri ke s. Och oa -Vas qu ez, 4 28 F.3dat 1 03 8. Th e reas ongi ve n fo r th e p erem pt ory st rik e n eedno t b e a g oo d re as on . It ca n b e an irr at io na l, “ si ll y

or s up ers ti ti ou s” reas on , as l on g a s i t i s n ota di sc riminat ory reas on . Purk et t v . Elem , 51 4 U.S. 7 65 , 76 8, 1 15 S.Ct . 17 69 , 17 71 (19 95 ). 45Howev er, the ul ti m at e b ur de n o f pe rs ua si onrem ai ns with t he pa rty chal le ng in g t he

st rik e as di sc riminat ory . Id.; Ocho a-Vas qu ez, 4 28 F.3dat 1 03 8. In th e th irdan d fin al st ag e, th e d is tri ctco urt m us t ev al ua te th e p ers ua si ve ne ss of t he pro ffer ed
reas onan d d et erm in e whe th er, co ns id eri ng all rel ev an t ci rcu m st an ces , th e o bjec to r ha s ca rri edth e b ur de n o f pr ov in g d is cri m in at io n. Och oa -Vas qu ez, 4 28 F.3dat 10 39
. Inth is cas e aft er the de fen da nt s m ad e th ei r Bat so n o bjec ti on s, the di st ric t co urt i ni ti al ly hadth e g ov ern m en t s ta te so m e rea so ns forit s p erem pt ory st rik es ag ai ns t b la ckve ni re m em be rs , bu t t he co urt cu t t ha t p ro ces s s ho rt b y no t al lo win g th e ap pe ll an ts to res po ndful ly to the st at edreas on s. Th e co urt d en ie d t he Bat so n cl ai m bo th on th e g ro un d t ha t the re was no pri m a fac ie cas e an d a ls o o n t he gro un d th atth e g ov ern m en t’s ex pl an at io ns forit s s tri ke s wer e “ le gi ti m at e an d n on di sc riminat ory .” Any errorin no t al lo win g t he de fen da nt s t o re sp on d t o t he st at ed
reas on s i s p ur el y

acad em ic if the co urt’s fi nd in g t ha t t he re was no pri m a fac ie cas e st an ds . See Och oa -Vas qu ez, 4 28 F.3dat 1 03 8 (“ Ourpre ced en t m ak es cle ar tha t ‘the est ab li sh m en t o f a p rima facie cas e is anab so lu te pre co nd it io n t o fu rth er in qu iry int o t he m ot iv at io n b eh in d t he ch al le ng edst rik e.”) (quo ti ng Cen tra l Alab am a Fai r Hou si ng Ctr . v. Lowd er Re al ty Co., 23 6 F .3d62 9, 6 36 (11 th Cir
. 20 00 )); Lowd er, 2 36 F.3dat 6 36 (“ [T]he th res ho ldtas k i n c on si de rin g aBat so n 46ch al le ng e, fo r a d is tri ctco urt as well as t hi s C ou rt, i s t o d et erm in e whe th er a p rima

faci e cas e was est ab li sh ed . If th e an swe r is no , th enth e in qu iry ceas es , andth e ch al le ng e sh ou ldbe de ni ed .”). Fo r st an da rdof r ev ie w pu rp os es , “ [t]he Bat so n i ss ue be fo re u s turns lar ge ly
on anev al ua ti on of c red ib il it y .” Fel kn er v . Jac ks on , __ _ U.S. _

__ , 13 1 S .Ct. 13 05 , 13 07 (20 11 ) (quo ta ti onm ark s o m it te d) . Accor di ng ly, “ [t]he tri al co urt’s de te rm in at io n i s en ti tl edto gre atde fere nc e, an d m us t b e su st ai ne d u nl es s i t i s cl earl y erro ne ou s.” Id . (ci ta ti on s an d quo ta ti on m ark s o m it te d) ; s ee al so Uni te d St at es v. Walk er, 4 90 F.3d12 82 , 12 92 (11 th Cir . 20 07 ) (“ W e g iv e g reatde fere nc e to th e d is tri ctco urt’s d et erm in at io n o f a p rima facie cas e.”); Ocho a-Vas qu ez, 4 28 F.3 d 1 01 5 a t 1 03 9 (“ W e g iv e g reatde fere nc e to a di stric t co urt’s fi nd in g o f whe th er a p rima facie cas e o f im pe rm is si bl e d is cri m in at io n h as be en es tabl is he d.” ); Un it edSta te s v . All en -Bro wn, 2 43 F.3d12 93 , 12 98 (11 th Cir
. 20 01 ) (“ [a]pp lying th e h ig hl y de fere nt ia l s ta nd ardof r ev ie w requi redby our pr eced en t” to th e p rima facie cas e d et erm in at io n o f th e d is tri ctco urt); Kin g v . Mo or e, 19 6 F .3d13 27 , 13 34 (11 th Cir . 19 99 ) (wh ethe r a p rima facie sh owi ng ha s be enm ad e is “ tre at edas aqu es ti on of f actto be de ci de d b y

th e tr ia l ju dg e”); Uni te d S ta te s v . Ste wart , 65 F.3d91 8, 9 23 (11 th Cir . 19 95 ) (“ [W] e g iv e g reat de fere nc e to th e d is tri ctco urt’s fi nd in g a s t o t he ex is te nc e o f a p rima facie cas e.”); 47Uni te d S ta te s v . Davi d, 8 03 F.2d15 67 , 15 71 (11 th Cir . 19 86 ) (“ The qu es ti on [of

whe th er a p rima facie cas e h as be enest ab li sh ed ] is on e o f fac t.”)
. Afte r so m e v en ire m em

be rs were ex cu se d fo r ha rd sh ip an d o th ers were rem ov edforcau se , th ere r em ai ne d 5 4 fr om whi ch th e jury was to be sel ect ed . One gr oup o f 38 ve ni re m em

be rs was u se d t o s el ectth e fi rs t 1 2 ju ro rs , whi le th e o th er gr oup o f 16 was u se d t o s el ectsi x a lt ern at e juro rs . Howev er h el pf ul th atdi vi si on m ay ha ve be enforadm in is tra ti ve pu rp os es , th e la w of thi s ci rcu itis th atin de te rm in in g wh ethe r a p rima facie cas e h as be enest ab li sh edth e p erem pt ory st rik es us edto sel ectalt ern at es are t o b e co ns id eredto ge th er wi th th os e u se d t o se le ctth e in it ia l 1 2 ju ro rs . Ocho a-Vas qu ez, 4 28 F.3dat 1 04 5 n .41 (“ In de te rm in in g wh ethe r a s ta ti st ic al pa tt ern of d is cri m in at io n e xi st s, o urpre ced en t lo ok s t o t he to ta l n um

be r of pe rem pt ory st rik es av ai labl e to th e st rik er, i nc lu di ng th e p erem pt ory st rik es ag ai ns t al te rn at es .”); see als o J oh ns on v. Ca li fo rn ia , 54 5 U.S. 16 2, 1 64 , 12 5 S .Ct. 2 41 0, 2 41 4 (2 00 5) (co ns id eri ng th e rac ia l co m po si ti on of

“ [t]he res ul ti ng jury, in cl ud in g a lt ern at es ”); Uni te d S ta te s v . Cam pa , 52 9 F .3d98 0, 99 8 (1 1th C ir. 2 00 8) (co ns id eri ng th e fac t t ha t “ th e jury inc lu de d t hr ee b la ck juro rs an d a n a lt ern at e b la ckjuro r”) (e m ph as is ad de d) ; Och oa -Vas qu ez, 4 28 F.3dat 10 46 (lo ok in g t o h ow m an y of t he juro rs an d a lt ern at es were Hi sp an ic ); Un it ed St at es v. Al li so n, 9 08 F.2d15 31 , 15 38 (11 th Cir . 19 90 ) (i nc lu di ng alt ern at e juro rs 48in th e st at is ti cal an al y si s fo r pr im a fac ie cas e p ur po se s) ; Un it edSta te s v . Denn is , 80 4 F .2d12 08 , 12 11 (11 th Cir . 19 86 ) (co ns id eri ng “ th e fac t tha t t he pro se cu to r us edth ree o f th e fo urpe rem pt ory ch al le ng es he ex erci se d t o s tri ke bl ack s fr om th e pa ne l o f po te nt ia l juro rs an d a lt ern at es ”) (e m ph as is ad de d)
. Of th e to ta l g ro up of 5 4 v en ire m em be rs fro m whi ch th e juro rs an d al te rn at es were s tru ck , 22 (41 %) were b la ck , 30 (56 %) were wh it e, an d 2 (4%) were As ia n. Th e g ov ern m en t h ad , anditex erci se d, 1 4 p erem pt ory st rik es ; i t u se d 9 (6 4%) of t he m

ag ai ns t b la ckve ni re m em be rs . The fin al jury of

18 (12 pl us si x al te rn at es ) in cl ud edni ne (50 %) bl ack s. If t he go ve rn m en t h adex erci se d a ll of t he st rik es itco ul d a ga in stbl ackve ni re m em be rs , th e res ul ti ng 18 juro rs an d a lt ern at es wou ldha ve in cl ud edon ly fou r (2 2%) bl ack s. Und er o urpre ced en t the se st at is ti cs , witho utm or e, do no t es tabl is h apri m a faci e cas e. InUni te d S ta te s v . Cam pa , 52 9 F .3d98 0, 9 89 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ), th e go ve rn m en t was all ot te d 1 1 p erem pt ory st rik es an d u se d 9 of t he m . Sev enof th os e n in e st rik es (78 %) were u se d a ga in stbl ack s. Id . The 1 6 ju ro rs (th ere wer e fo uralt ern at es ) who were s el ect edin cl ud edfou r (2 5%) bl ack s. Th e d is tri ctco urt ha d fo un d apri m a fac ie cas e, bu t we o ve rtu rn edth atfin di ng . Id. at99 8. Ou r de ci si on th ata pr im a fac ie cas e h adno t b een est ab li sh edwas b as edpri m ari ly on th e fac t tha t “ th e g ov ern m en t d idno t at te m ptto ex cl ud e as m an y

bl ackpe rs on s as 49itco ul d fr om th e jury,” andth e jury withalt ern at es in cl ud edfou r bl ack s. Id . at 99 8; see als o Lo wde r Rea lt y Co ., 23 6 F .3dat 6 38 (“ Thi s C ou rt h as he ldth atth e un ch al le ng edpre se nc e o f juro rs of apa rti cu la r rac e o n ajury subs ta nt ia ll y weak en s t he ba si s fo r a p rima facie cas e o f di sc riminat io n i n t he pe rem pt ory st rik in g o f juro rs of t ha t ra ce.”) ; Un it edSta te s v . Pue nt es , 50 F.3d15 67 , 15 78 (1 1t h C ir.1 99 5) (“ Alt ho ug h t he pre se nc e o f Afri can -Am eri can juro rs do es no t di sp os e o f anall eg at io n o f rac e-b as edpe rem pt ory ch al le ng es , itis a si gn ifi can t fact or ten di ng to pro ve th e p au ci ty of th e cl ai m .”); Uni te d S ta te s v . All is on , 90 8 F.2 d 1 53 1, 1 53 7 (1 1t h C ir. 1 99 0) (rea so ni ng th atth e u nc ha ll en ge d p res en ce o f bl ack s o n ajury un de rcu ts th e in fere nc e o f im pe rm is si bl e d is cri m in at io n tha t
m ig htari se so le ly from

st rik in g o th er b la ckpro sp ect iv e juro rs ). The cas e fo r fi nd in g n o p rima facie cas e is ev enst ro ng er h ere t ha n i t was in Cam pa . Here th e g ov ern m en t u se d asm al le r pe rcen ta ge of i ts st rik es ag ai ns t bl ack s t ha n i n C am

pa(64 % ve rs us 78 %), th e num be r of bl ackjuro rs itco ul d h av e bu t d idno t ex cl ud e was gre at er tha n i n C am pa(fi ve ve rs us two ), an d t he re were m or e b la ck s l eftam on g t he juro rs who were s el ect edth aninCam pa(ni ne or 5 0%
ve rs us fou r or16 %). See al so Ocho a-Vas qu ez, 4 28 F.3dat 1 04 5– 46 (no pri m a faci e cas e whe re 4 4 o f th e 8 2 (5 4%) of t he ve ni re m em be rs were Hi sp an ic , th e go ve rn m en t u se d 5 of i ts 9 (5 6%) st rik es ag ai ns t Hi sp an ic s, an d 6 of the 17 (35 %) 50juro rs an d a lt ern at es sel ect edto serve were Hi sp an ic ); De nn is , 80 4 F .2dat 1 20 9,

12 11 (affi rm in g fi nd in g o f no pri m a fac ie cas e whe re “ th e g ov ern m en t d idno t at te m ptto ex cl ud e al l b la ck s, o r as m an y bl ack s as itco ul d, fr om

th e jury,” and

“ th e unc ha ll en ge d p res en ce o f two bl ack s o n the jury un de rcu ts an y in fere nc e o f im pe rm is si bl e d is cri m in at io n t ha t m ig htbe arg ue d t o aris e fro m th e fac t t ha t t he pr os ecu to r us edth ree o f th e fo ur pe rem pt ory ch al le ng es [th e g ov ern m en t]
ex erci se d t o s tri ke bl ack s fr om th e p an el of p ot en ti al juro rs or a lt ern at es ”). Of co ur se , th e p rima facie cas e d et erm in at io n i s n otto be ba se d o n n um be rs al on e b utis to be m ad e in li gh t o f th e to ta li ty of th e ci rcu m st an ces . Jo hn so n v . Cal ifo rn ia , 54 5 U.S. 1 62 , 16 8, 1 25 S.Ct . 24 10 , 24 16 (20 05 ) (the de fen da ntm us t
m ak e o uta pr im a fac ie cas e “by sho win g t ha t t he to ta li ty of th e rel ev an t fa ct s gi ve s ri se to anin fere nc e o f di sc riminat ory pu rp os e”) ( qu ot in g B at so n, 4 76 U.S. at 93 –9 4, 1 06 S.Ct . at 1 71 2) ; Och oa -Vas qu ez, 4 28 F.3dat 1 04 4 (i n o rd er t o de te rm in e whe th er a p rima facie cas e h as be enest ab li sh ed“ co urts m us t co ns id er al l re le va ntcir cu m st an ces ”). Inth is cas e, ho wev er, the re i s n o c irc um st an ce o th er th annu m be rs to supp ort an in fere nc e o f di sc riminat io n. The subjec t m at te r of

th e cas e can so m et im es su gg es t a m ot iv e fo r di sc riminat ory

us e o f pe rem

pt ory st rik es . Ocho a-Vas qu ez, 4 28 F.3dat 1 04 5 n .39 (“ Inso m e Bat so n c la im s, the subjec t m at te r of th e cas e m ay

be rel ev an t i f itis 51raci al ly or ethn ic al ly sen si ti ve .”). Fo r ex am pl e, in Uni te d S ta te s v . Ste wart , 65 F.3 d 9 18 (11 th Cir . 19 95 ), we no te d t ha t “ Bat so n t each es th ata pr im a fac ie cas e de te rm in at io n s ho ul d i nc lu de anex am in at io n o f al l re le va ntcir cu m st an ces ,” an d

“ [a]m on g t he rel ev an t ci rcu m st an ces is th e subjec t m atte r of th e cas e b ei ng tri ed .” Id . at 9 25 (qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) . In St ewart , wher e th e ch al le ng e was to th e de fen da nt s’ us e o f pe rem pt ory strik es ag ai ns t wh it e v en ire m em be rs , th e subjec t
m at te r wei gh edhe av il y

in fav orof apri m a fac ie cas e fi nd in g b ecau se th e de fen da nt s wer e Ku Kl ux Klan m em be rs who were b ei ng pro se cu te d fo r a rac ia ll y m ot iv at edha te cri m e ag ai ns t b la ck s. Id . at 9 21 –2 2, 9 25 –2 6. An ot he r ex am pl e is Jo hn so n, wh ere t he Supr em e Co urt d et erm in edth atth e d efen da ntha d e st ab li sh ed a p rima facie cas e th atth e p ro se cu ti onha d u se d i ts st rik es in a raci al ly di sc riminat ory

way ag ai ns t b la ck s. 5 45 U.S. at 1 73 , 12 5 S .Ct. at24 19 . In the
co ur se of m ak in g t ha t d et erm in at io n, t he Co urt quo te d wi th ap pr ov al a lo wer co urt’s s ta te m en t tha t the fact“ a b la ckde fen da ntwas ‘cha rg edwith k il li ng hi s Whi te gi rlf

rie nd ’s chi ld ’” was a “ hi gh ly relev an t” cir cu m st an ce. Id . at 1 67 , 12 5 S.Ct . at 2 41 5 (q uo ta ti on m ark s o m it te d) . Here, by con tra st , th e subjec t m at te r of th e cas e is no t the lea stbi t ra ci al . This is a m ortg ag e fraudcas e in whi ch th e vi ct im s ar e co lo rle ss in st itut io ns . The o nl y rel ev an t co lo r is th e co lo r of m on ey , an d t ha t s ha de of g reen is race ne ut ral
. 52The factth atth e d efen da nt s ar e th e sa m e rac e as th e st ru ckjuro rs is an ot he r

ci rcu m st an ce tha t ca n b e rel ev an t t o t he pri m a fac ie cas e que st io n. Se e Bu i v
. Hale y , 32 1 F .3d13 04 , 13 18 (11 th Cir . 20 03 ) (tho ug h n otdi sp os it iv e, itm ay be

“ no te worth y ” fo r Bat so n p ur po se s wh ethe r de fen dant s o r vi ct im s ar e o f sa m e rac e as ex cl ud edjuro rs ); Al le n- Bro wn, 2 43 F.3dat 1 29 8 (r ace o f de fen da nt s ca n b e co ns id eredas r el ev an t ci rcu m st an ces in ev al ua ti ng Bat so n c ha ll en ge ). In t hi s ca se , ho wev er, m os t o f th e d efen da nt s b ei ng tri edwere n otof t he same race as th e juro rs ag ai ns t wh om

th e ch al le ng edst rik es were m ad e. Nin e o f th e 1 2 d efen dant s (7 5%) were wh it e, as were 1 1 o f th e 1 3 (8 5%) de fen se lawyers atco un se l t ab le . Becau se th e p red om in an t ra ce o f th e d efen dant s an d t he ir a tt orne y s co ul d n othave supp li ed
a m ot iv e fo r th e g ov ern m en t t o re m ov e b la ck s fr om th e jury, it d oe s n otweig h i n fav orof apri m a fac ie cas e. The app el la nt s h av e n otsu gg es te d a ny oth er ci rcu m st an ce tha t p oi nt s t owa rdth e ex is te nc e o f a p rima facie cas e o f a Bat so n v io la ti on . Fo r th es e rea so ns , andgi vi ng th e d is tri ctco urt’s fi nd in g t he de fere nc e th atit is du e, we can no t co nc lu de th e co urt erredin de te rm in in g tha t t he de fen da nt s fai le d t o e st ab li sh a pr im a fac ie cas e th atth e g ov ern m en t u se d i ts pe rem pt ory st rik es in a raci al ly dis cri m in at ory m an ne r. V. Evid en ti ary Is su es

53A. Lay Opi ni on Test im on y At tria l, the di stric t co urt p erm it te d s ev eral rep res en ta ti ve s o f vi ct im len di ng in st itut io ns , all of wh om

were i nv ol ve d i n m ortg ag e an d l oa n app ro va l fo r th ei r res pe ct iv e co m

pa ni es , to tes ti fy

ab ou t wh ethe r th e d is cl os ur e o f m is rep res en ta ti on s in so m e o f th e fraudul en t l oa n app li cat io ns wou ldha ve ha d a ny effecton th ei r de ci si on to ap pr ov e th e m ortg ag e o r lo an . Farm er o bjec te d t o t hi s l in e o f qu es ti on in g s ev eral ti m es , andhe no w con te nd s t ha t t he di st ric t co urt erredby adm it ti ng whathe ch arac te riz es as e xp erttes ti m on y witho utfol lo win g t he pro pe r pr oc edur es forqu al ifyin g a n e xp ertwitne ss or f ordi sc lo si ng th e co nt en ts of t he
ex pe rt’s t es ti m on y

as r equi redby Rul e 1 6( g) of t he Fed eral Ru le s o f Cri m in al Pro cedur e. W e rev ie w a lo wer co urt’s d eci si on to adm itev id en ce o nl y foran 1 4 ab us e o f di sc ret io n. Un it edSta te s v . Kenn ard , 47 2 F .3d85 1, 8 54 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ). Acco rd in g t o F ed eral Ru le of Ev id en ce 7 01 , a lay witn es s m ay off er op in io ns th atare: “ (a) ra ti on al ly bas edon th e p erce pt io n o f th e wit ne ss , (b) he lp fu l t o acle ar u nd ers ta nd in g o f th e wit ne ss ’ te st im on y or t he de te rm in at io n o f a factinis su e, an d (c ) no t b as edonsci en ti fic , tec hn ic al , or o th er s pe ci al iz ed

Br own, Hill, Powers, and Va n Mersbe rg en adopt this argument. David Thomas 1 4 attempts to do so but cannot beca use he w aived his right to appeal his convic tion. See supra, n.11. 54kn owl ed ge withi n t he sco pe of Rul e 7 02 .” Fed . R. Evi d. 7 01 . The Advi so ry 1 5 Co m m it te e ex pl ai ne d t ha t the pu rp os e o f th e 2 00 0 a m en dm en t t ha t ad de d
subs ect io n (c ) to Ru le 70 1 was “ to eli m in at e th e ri skth atth e rel iabi li ty requi rem en ts setforth in Ru le 70 2 wi ll be ev ad edth ro ug h t he si m pl e ex pe di en t o f pr of feri ng anex pe rt i n l ay

witne ss clo th in g.” Fed . R. Evi d. 7 01 Adv is ory Co m m . Not es . Farm er ar gu es th atth e d is tri ctco urt p erm it te d t he go ve rn m en t t o d is gu is e it s ex pe rts in lay witn es s cl othi ng by allo win g wi tn es se s fr om len di ng in st itut io ns to an swe r th e g ov ern m en t’s h y po th et ic al qu es ti on s ab ou t t he ir l en di ng de ci si on s de sp it e th e fac t tha t the ha ll m arkof a n e xp ertwitne ss is hi s ab il it y to an swe r hypo th et ic al qu es ti on s. See Uni te d S ta te s v . Hend ers on , 40 9 F .3d12 93 , 13 00 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 5)
. As the Adv is ory

Co m m it te e m ad e cl ear a ndas we ha ve he ld , ho wev er, Ru le 70 1 d oe s n otpro hi bi t l ay witne ss es fro m

tes ti fy in g b as edon parti cu la riz ed kn owl ed ge ga in edfro m

th ei r own pe rs on al ex pe rie nc es . In Tam paBay Rule 702 provides: 1 5 I f scientific, technica l, or other specia liz ed knowledg e will assist the trier of fac t to understand the evidenc e or to deter mine a fac t in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledg e, skill, experience , training , or educa

tion, may testify there to in the form of an op i nion o r o t h erwise, if (1) the testimony is based upon sufficie nt fac ts or data, (2) the t es t imony is the product of reliable principles and methods, and (3) the witness has applied the principles and methods reliably to the fac ts of the ca se. Fe d. R. Evid. 702. 55Sh ip bu il di ng & Rep ai r Co . v. Ced ar Sh ip pi ng Co ., Ltd., 3 20 F.3d12 13 (11 th Cir
.

20 03 ), whi chth e d is tri ctco urt re li edup on , we add res se d wh ethe r th e am en de d
ve rs io n o f Ru le 70 1 p erm it s an off ic er o r em

pl oyee of a co rp or at io n t o o ffer

lay op in io n t es ti m on y

ab ou t i ndus try sta nd ard s an d p ric in g. We con cl ud edth atth e di st ric t co urt h adno t ab us edit s d is cret io n i n p erm it ti ng off ic ers an d e m

pl oyees t o te st ify as l ay

witne ss es ab ou t the reas on ab le ne ss of t he ir c or po rat io n’s p ric in g i n li gh t o f in du st ry

st an da rd s. Ou r rea so ni ng was t ha t t he ir t es ti m on y was “ ba se d up on th ei r pa rti cu la riz edkn owl ed ge ga rn eredfro m y ears of e xp eri en ce wi th in th e fie ld .” Id . at 1 22 3. As we no te d i n Tam paBay, th e Adv is ory

Co m m it te e n ot es to th e 2 00 0 a m en dm en ts sp eci fic al ly carve ou t t he lay op in io n t es ti m on y of b us in es s own ers or o ffi cers fro m

subs ect io n (c )’s ex cl us io n, an d e xp la in th at : m os t cou rts ha ve pe rm it te d [own ers an d offi cers ] to te st ify
. . . wit ho ut th e ne ces si ty o f q u a l i f

yi n g th e wit ne ss as an . . . e xp ert . Su ch op in io n te st im on y is adm it te d no t be cau se of ex pe rie nc e, tra in in g or sp eci al iz ed kn owl ed ge wit hi n th e r e a l m of an expe rt, bu t be cau se of th e pa rti cu la riz ed kn owl ed ge th at th e wit ne ss ha s by vi rtu e of hi s or h er po si ti on in th e b u s in es s. The am en dm en t do es no t pu rp ort to ch an ge th is an al y si s. Tam paBay, 32 0 F .3dat 1 22 2 (q uo ti ng Fed . R. Evi d. 7 01 Adv is ory Co m m . Not es ). Farm er al so co m

pl ai ns th atth e le nd er re pr es en ta ti ve s s ho ul d n otha ve be en al lo wedto tes ti fy

ab ou t wh atth ei r in st itut io ns wou ldha ve do ne ha d t he y kn own th atsev eral rep res en ta ti on s i n v ari ou s l oa n app li cat io ns were fa ls ifi ed . He arg ue s 56th at“ th e ab il it y to an swe r hypo th et ic al qu es ti on s i s t he ess en ti al di ffer en ce be twee n e xp ertan d l ay

witne ss es .” Hend ers on , 40 9 F .3dat 1 30 0 (q uo ta ti on m ark s an d a lt erat io n o m it te d) . As th e Adv is ory Co m m it te e’s no te s i nd ic at e, ho wev er,

“ [t]he am en dm en t d oe s n otdi st in gu is h b etweenex pe rt a ndlay witn es se s, b ut rathe r be twee n e xp ertan d l ay tes ti m on y .” Fed . R. Evi d. 7 01 Adv is ory Co m m . Not es . Andwe he ldin Tam paBay th atth e o pi ni on tes ti m on y of abu si ne ss own er oroff ic er ab ou t the m an ne r in whi ch th atco m pa ny con du ct s i ts bu si ne ss , whi ch is ba se d o n p art ic ul ari zedkn owl ed ge sh e g ai ne d i n h er p os it io n, i s p ro pe rly treat ed
as lay tes ti m on y . Adm is si on of t ha t t es ti m on y do es no t re qu ire th atsh e b e qu al ifi edas a n e xp ertun de r Ru le 70 2. Mo st of th e lay witne ss es who an swe redhypo th et ic al qu es ti on s i n thi s ca se di d n otdo so ba se d o n a ny “ sc ie nt ifi c, te ch ni cal or o th er s pe ci al iz edkn owl ed ge ,” bu t i ns te adba se d t he ir t es ti m on y on th ei r pe rs on al ex pe rie nc es as o ffi cers of fin an ci al in st itut io ns with kno wled ge of t he ir c om pa ni es ’ po li ci es an d o f th e sp eci fic trans act io ns at i ss ue . Bes id es , itdo es no t t ak e an y sp eci al iz edor t ech ni cal kn owl ed ge to real iz e th atlen di ng in st itut io ns wou ldbe rel uc ta ntto ap pr ov e a l oa n ap pl ic at io n i f th ey

kn ew th atitco nt ai ne d fa ls e st at em en ts ab ou t m at eri al fact s. Bec au se of t ha t, the re i s l it tl e o r no da ng er tha t l ay witne ss tes ti m on y

was u se d t o ev ad e th e rel iabi li ty requ ire m en ts of Rul e 7 02 . For t he se reas on s, the di st ric t co urt 57di d n otab us e it s d is cret io n b y pe rm it ti ng th e wit ne ss es who ha d p ers on al ly deal t wit h t he frau du le ntlo antra ns act io ns at i ss ue to res po ndto th e g ov ern m en t’s qu es ti on s ab ou t wh atwou ldha ve happ en edif t he fact s h adbe endi ffer en t. See Uni te d S ta te s v . Mu no z-Fr an co , 48 7 F .3d25 , 35 –3 6 (1 stCir . 20 07 ) (p erm it ti ng a ba nkvi ce p res id en t t o o fferhi s o pi ni on th atth e b an k’s l oa n c la ss ifi cat io ns wou ld ha ve be enim

pr op er b as edon cert ai n fa ct s b ecau se hi s o pi ni on “ was ba se d o n kn owl ed ge of [ th e b an k’s] pra ct ic es th athe acqui reddu rin g h is em pl oym en t th ere” ). As fo r th e wit ne ss es who were n otpe rs on al ly inv ol ve d wi th th e tr an sa ct io ns atis su e, an y

erro r in adm it ti ng th ei r te st im on y was h arm le ss . Uni te d S ta te s v . Fraz ie r , 38 7 F .3d12 44 , 12 66 n.2 0 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 4) (enba nc ) (requi rin g re ve rs al in a cri m in al cas e o nl y

if e rro ne ou sl y

adm it te d e vi de nc e “ [h ad ] a subs tant ia l in flu en ce o n t he ou tc om e o f a cas e o r [l eft ] gr av e d oubtas t o wh ethe r th ey affe ct ed th e o ut co m e o f a cas e”) ( qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) . Sev eral fact or s wei gh ag ai ns t a co nc lu si on th atth e err on eo us adm is si on of t he se witne ss es ’ op in io ns ha d a
subs ta nt ia l i m

pa cton th e o ut co m e o f th is cas e. One i s t ha t o th er t es ti m on y to ex act ly the same effectby repre se nt at iv es of o th er i ns ti tu ti on s wi th pe rs on al kn owl ed ge of a ndin vo lv em en t i n s im il ar tran sa ct io ns was p ro pe rly adm it te d, as we ha ve jus t d is cu ss ed . All o f th e ap pe ll an ts who no w cla im th atth e d is tri ctco urt 58erre d, wi th th e ex cep ti on of F arm er an d B ro wn, i nv it edsi m il ar t es ti m on y fro m ot he r id en ti cal ly situa te d l ay witne ss es by ent eri ng in to st ip ul at io ns ab ou t h ow th os e wit ne ss es wou ldtes ti fy
. Farm er an d t he ot he r ap pe ll an ts fai le d t o o bjec t t o th e sa m e type o f te st im on y by oth er l ay

witne ss es . Andth e co urt ex pl ai ne d t o t he jury thatitsh ou ldco ns id er wi tn es se s’ ans wers to hypo th et ic al qu es ti on s o nl y to th e ex te ntth atth e fac ts ass um edin th e h y po th et ic al qu es ti on s wer e p ro ve n. In li gh t o f th os e co ns id erat io ns an d t he ov erwh el m in g a m ou ntof o th er ev id en ce pr es en te d a t tria l, we ar e n otlef t wi th a gr av e d oubtth atth e o ut co m e was affe ct ed by any erro r in adm it ti ng th e te st im on y . Ins te ad , we are co nv in cedth atan y su ch
erro r was ha rm le ss . B. Su m m ary Ch art s Bro wn co nt en ds th atsh e an d h er co -d efen da nt s wer e subjec te d t o a“ tri al by ch art s” in vi ol at io n o f th ei r ri gh t t o afai r tr ia l b ecau se th e d is tri ctco urt p erm it te d th e g ov ern m en t t o i nt ro du ce s umm ary ch art s an d t o i ntro du ce t es ti m on y th at ex pl ai ne d a ndsu m

m ari zedth e co nt en ts of t he ch art s wi th ou t qua li fy in g t he wit ne ss es as e xp ert s. See Un it edSta te s v . Ric ha rd so n, 2 33 F.3d12 85 (11 th Cir
. 1 6 20 00 ). Perm it ti ng th e u se of s umm ary ev id en ti ary ch art s i s wi th inth e d is cret io n
Fa rmer, H ill, L auder

mill, P ower s, and Va

n Mersbe rg en adopt this arg ument. David 1 6 Thomas attempts to do so but cannot bec ause he waived his right to appeal his convic tion. See supra, n.11. 59of

th e d is tri ctco urt, i d. at12 93 , bu t Lau de rm il l ar gu es th atth e d is tri ctco urt ab us edit s d is cret io n b ecau se th e ch art s wer e m is le ad in g, was te d t im e, an d vi ol at edva rio us rul es of e vi de nc e. The go ve rn m en t co m

pl ie d wi th th e requi rem en ts of Rul e 1 00 6 b y m ak in g th e su m m ary ch art s an d re la te d e xh ib it s av ai labl e to de fen se co un se l b efo re tria l. The re was in it ia ll y

so m e d is pu te ab ou t t ha t, b utitwas re so lv edwhenth e go ve rn m en t u se d aco py serv ic e to sca n a ll of t he ex hi bi ts in to ele ctro ni c fo rm an d
m ad e th em

av ai labl e to de fen se co un se l b efo re tria l. Eve n i f th e ch art s wer e im pr op erl y adm it te d, Br ownan d t he ot he r ap pe ll an ts ha ve fai le d t o d em on st rat e ho w th ey were p reju di cedby the erro r. All of t he de fen da nt s h adacce ss to th e go ve rn m en t’s d oc um en tary ev id en ce m on th s b efo re tria l an d t o the m ark edan d
nu m be redex hi bi ts th em se lv es be fo re tria l, the un de rlyin g d oc um en ts were adm it te d i nt o e vi de nc e b efo re the su m m ari es , andeach of t he de fen da nt s h adan op po rtu ni ty to cr os s- ex am in e th e g ov ern m en t’s wi tn es se s ab ou t t he su m m ari es . Noton ly tha t, b utBro wn an d h er co -d efen da nt s al so us edth e g ov ern m en t’s ch art s atvario us ti m es du rin g t he tri al — dur in g d ire ctex am in at io n, cr os sex am in at io n, an d i n t he ir c lo si ng arg um en ts . Fin al ly, th e d is tri ctco urt g av e se ve ral cau ti on ary in stru ct io ns reg ard in g t he us e o f th e su m m ary ch art s, an d we pr es um e th atth e jury fol lo wedth os e in st ru ct io ns . Uni te d S ta te s v . Sto ne , 9 F.3 d 6093 4, 9 38 (11 th Cir . 19 93 ) (“ The cru ci al ass um pt io n u nd erl y in g t he syste m of t ria l by j ury is th atjuri es wil l fo ll ow t he in st ru ct io ns gi ve n t he m by the tri al jud ge .” (quo ta ti onom it te d) ). C. Am ou ntof Lo ss W e al so rejectLaud erm il l’s co nt en ti on th atth e d is tri ctco urt co m m it te d
rev ers ib le erro r by adm it ti ng du rin g t he tri al ev id en ce ab ou t t he am ou ntof l os s th atres ul te d fr om

th e fraudan d m on ey

lau nd eri ng . Laud erm il l ar gu es th atwhi le

1 7 th e fac t o f lo ss ha d t o b e p ro ve n, t he am ou ntof t he lo ss was i rrel ev an t, an d t he pr ejud ic ia l ef

fectof t he am ou ntof t he lo ss subs ta nt ia ll y ou twei gh edan y

pro ba ti ve va lu e itha d. The di stric t co urt d idno t ab us e it s d is cret io n. Th e am ou ntof t he lo ss , of
co ur se , dem on strat es th e fac t o f lo ss . Bey on d t ha t, the vi ct im s’ lo ss is rel at ed
en ou gh to th e d efen da nt s’ gai n t o b ear o n t he m ot iv e th atth e d efen da nt s h adfor
co m m it ti ng th e fraud . “ [M]ot iv e is alwa y s re le va ntin a cri m in al cas e, ev enif i t i s no t an ele m en t o f th e cri m e.” Un it edSta te s v . Sriyuth, 9 8 F .3d73 9, 7 47 n.1 2 (3 d Ci r. 19 96 ). Andwith fi na nc ia l cr im es , th e m or e m on ey , th e m or e m ot iv e. W e are no t s ur pr is edth atLaud erm il l h as be enun ab le to cit e a s in gl e d eci si on fro m an y
Br own, Fa

rmer, H ill, P ower s, and Va n Mersbe rg en adopt this argument. David 1 7 Thomas attempts to do so but cannot bec ause he waived his right to appeal his convic tion. See supra, n.11. 61co urt h ol di ng th atth e am ou ntof l os s i nf li ct edonth e v ic ti m

by the de fen da nt ’s cri m e is in adm is si bl e u nd er Ru le 40 1, Ru le 40 3, o r fo r an y ot he r rea so n. D. Alci nd or ’s Evi de nc e Abo utCri m in al Int en t Alci nd orco nt en ds th atth e d is tri ctco urt ab us edit s d is cret io n b y ex cl ud in g as irr el ev an t ev id en ce tha t h e sa y s wo ul d h av e h el pe d s ho w th athe was m erel y us edby Grah am . The p ro ffer edev id en ce was th atothe rs be li ev edth atGrah am ha d t ak enadva nt ag e o f th em . Wha t o th ers fel t ab ou t t he ir o wn ro le s i s n ot pr ob at iv e o f whe th er Al ci nd orhi m se lf l ack edcri m in al in te nt , and , inan y ev en t, th e jury didhe ar t es ti m on y fro m so m e o th er wi tn es se s t ha t t he y fel t u se d b y Grah am . Alci nd orals o c on te nd s t ha t i t was anab us e o f di sc ret io n fo r th e d is tri ctco urt to ex cl ud e ev id en ce i n t he form of h is “ em

pl oyee se rv ic e rec or d,” whi ch he
as se rte d wo ul d s ho w “ whe re h e was work in g, wh athe was m ak in g, [a nd ] ho w m uc h h e g av e up” in ord er t o i nv es t wi th Grah am in th e Cas cad e d ev el op m en t. Alci nd or ’s po si ti on was t ha t h is pro ffer edev id en ce ab ou t wh athe ha d g iv enup to in ve stwith Gra ha m

wou ldsh ow t ha t h e la ck edan y in te ntto de frau d, b utth at ev id en ce d oe s n otm ak e itan y les s l ik el y

th atAlci nd ordi d n otin te ndto pa rti ci pa te in th e fraudul en t ac ti vi ti es . Alci nd or ’s in ve stm en t i n the sch em e refl ect s a b el ie f th atth e li ke li ho odan d a m ou ntof r ewardwas wo rth whathe was 62ris ki ng , bu t tha t s ay s n ot hi ng ab ou t wh ethe r he be li ev edth e sc he m e was

le gi ti m at e. Infact , th e m or e o f hi s o wn m on ey Alci nd orin ve st edin th e un de rta ki ng , th e m or e m ot iv e h e h adto en ga ge in any act io n n eces sa ry

to pre ve nt lo si ng it
. Inan y ev en t, ev enif t he co urt s ho ul d h av e p erm it te d Al ci nd orto in tro du ce th atev id en ce, we are co nv in cedth athe was n otpre jud ic edby its ex cl us io n. Alci nd or ’s bro th ers were al lo wedto tes ti fy th atth ey ha d t o wi re h im

m on ey aft er he ha d e xp en de d h is sav in gs , ret ire m en t, an d 4 01 (k ) fu nd s o n t he Cas cad e p ro ject,
an d Al ci nd orm ad e arg um en ts ba se d o n t ha t t es ti m on y inhi s cl os in g. E. Powers ’ Brad y

Cla im Po wers co nt en ds th atth e g ov ern m en t i m pr op erl y withh el d e vi de nc e in vi ol at io n o f Bra dy v. Marylan d, 3 73 U.S. 83 , 83 S.Ct . 11 94 (19 63 ). The ev id en ce in qu es ti on is ane-m ai l ad dr es se d t o R ect orfro m a se nd er Po wers id en ti fie d a s

“ San sk i.” Po wers cla im s t ha t n am e was be in g u se d b y Alex Ry bi ns ki , who is th e br ot he r of

W ayne Ry

bi ns ki , a straw b uyer. The e-m ai l, d at edAug us t 1 5, 2 00 1, t o Rec to r fro m

“ San sk i” st at ed : I ne ed to kn ow if y ou can le nd m y br ot he r $1 5,0 00 .00 ? he is wil li ng to pa y an ot he r $1 ,50 0.0 0. Po wers se nt hi m pape rs fo r se ve n un it s. E-m ai l orcal l. tha nk s fo r y ou r ti m e. A.W
.

63Po wers cla im s t ha t the e-m ai l was fav or ab le to hi s d efen se be cau se W ayne

Ry bi nk sk i t es ti fie d dur in g t ria l tha t Po wers ha d d ire ct edhi m to co nt actRect orin
or de r to reque sta sh ort-t erm lo anth atwou ldin fla te Ry bi ns ki ’s ban k a cco un t s o th athe wou ldhave en ou gh of aba la nc e in itto qu al ify for a l oa n i n ast raw tra ns act io n. Po wers arg ue s t ha t t he e-m ai l co nt rad ic ts th attes ti m on y . Whe n vi ewedinth e co nt ex t o f ot he r ev id en ce i nt ro du cedat t ria l re ga rd in g t he Ry bi ns ki st raw tran sa ct io ns , ho wev er, the e-m ai l i s co ns is te ntwith t he tes ti m on y of Wayne Ry bi ns ki
. The ev id en ce s ho wedth atRy bi ns ki en ga ge d i n m

ul ti pl e tr an sa ct io ns to pu rch as e co nd om in iu m s, ea ch of wh ic h re qu ire d h im to ha ve $1 5,0 00 in hi s b an k
acco un t i n o rd er t o a cqui re the lo an s n eces sa ry to co m pl et e th e p ur ch as es . In M ay 20 01 , inord er t o c om

pl et e th e fi rs t t ran sa ct io n Ry bi ns ki co m

bi ne d s om e o f hi s own m on ey

with m on ey

he ha d b orro wedfro m

fam il y m em be rs . Ry bi ns ki te st ifi edth ataft er tha t tran sa ct io n a ndbe fo re h is ne xtsetof p ur ch as es , Powe rs ha d ag ai n i nf orm edhi m

th athe wou ldne eda ba lanc e o f $1 5,0 00 in th e b an k. Be cau se Ry bi nk si di d n otha ve th e fu nd s, Po wers in st ru ct edhi m to cal l Re ct or . Ban k
reco rd s s ho w a $1 5,0 00 wire trans fer fr om Rect orto Ry

bi ns ki on Aug us t 2 , 20 01
. Ry bi ns ki tes ti fie d t ha t Re ct or cal le d h im

aft er the fir stwire tra ns fer t o t el l h im th at th e lo antra ns act io ns were n otread y , andas ares ul t, Rybin sk i re tu rn edth e m on ey 64by wire tran sf er o n Au gu st6. Ban k re co rd s al so sh ow a s eco nd$1 5,0 00 wire tra ns fer fr om

Rect orto Ry

bi ns ki on Aug us t 2 0, wh ic h was aft er the lo an s wer e read y to be co m

pl et ed , andth ey

sh ow t ha t Rybi ns ki returne d t he m on ey to Rect or by wire tran sf

er o n Au gu st23
. The em ai l i n que st io n was da te d Au gu st15 , whi ch was a fte r th e fi rs t s etof wire tra ns fers bu t b efo re the sec on d. Th atis co ns is te ntwith t he st at em en t i n t he em ai l tha t “ he is wil li ng to pa y an ot he r $1 ,50 0.0 0.” Becaus e o f it s t im in g t he em ai l d oe s n otco nt rad ic t Rybi ns ki ’s tes ti m on y th athe co nt act edRect orto reque sta lo anat t he su gg es ti on of P owe rs . Power s’ Brady cla im foc us es on Ry

bi ns ki ’s te st im on y ab ou t h is reque stfora lo anfro m Rect or th atge ne rat edth e fi rs t s etof wire tra ns fers . Tho se were co m pl et edbe fo re the em ai l i n que st io n was sen t o n Aug us t 1 5. Th e e-m ai l re ferr edto th e se co ndsetof wi re tran sf ers . Bec au se th e e-m ai l was no t i nc on si st en t wi th Ry bi ns ki ’s tes ti m on y , itco ul d
no t h av e b eenus edto im pe ach hi s t es ti m on y

ag ai ns t Po wers . For tha t re as on ev id en ce o f itwas n ei th er fa vo rab le to Po wers no r m at eri al to th e res ul t o f th e tri al . There was n o B rady vi ol at io n. Se e Stric kl er v . Green e, 52 7 U.S. 2 63 , 29 0, 11 9 S .Ct. 1 93 6, 1 95 2 (1 99 9) ; Al le n v . Sec’y , Flo rid a Dep ’t of Co rr., 61 1 F .3d74 0, 74 5– 46 (11 th Cir . 20 10 ); Ha m m on d v . Hall , 58 6 F .3d12 89 , 13 05 (11 th Cir . 20 09 ). VI. Mis cel la ne ou s Tri al Iss ue s

65A. Anta go ni sm Towardth e Defen da nt s VanMers be rg enco nt en ds th atth e d is tri ctco urt ab us edit s d is cret io n a nd vi ol at edhi s Fi fth an d S ix th Am en dm en t ri gh ts in th e m an ne r in whi ch th e co urt co nduc te d t he tri al , sp eci fic al ly by m ak in g c rit ic al an d “ ha rs h” st at em en ts to so m e of th e d efen se co un se l attri al
. Outof t he ni ne te enex ch an ge s b etweenth e co urt 1 8
an d d efen se co un se l tha t ar e ci te d b y Van M ers be rg en , ho wev er, two o ccu rredat pr etria l co nf

eren ces , ele ve n o ccu rreddu rin g the tri al bu t o ut si de th e p res en ce o f th e jury, andon ly six oc cu rredwithi n t he pre se nc e o f th e jury. “ Bec au se a cl ear effe cton th e jury is re qu ire d t o re ve rs e fo r co m m en t b y th e tr ia l ju dg e,” we wi ll
on ly con si de r th e tr ia l co urt’s co m m en ts th atwere m ad e in th e p res en ce o f th e jury. Uni te d S ta te s v . Pal m a, 51 1 F .3d13 11 , 13 17 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ) (quo ta ti on m ark s o m it te d)
. A tri al co urt i s re qu ire d t o “ ex erci se reas on ab le co nt ro l o ve r th e m od e an d
or de r of in te rro ga ti ng witne ss es an d p res en ti ng ev id en ce” i n o rd er t o e ns ur e th at ev id en ce i s p res en te d e ffec ti ve ly for the asc ert ai nm en t o f trut h, t im e is co ns erv ed , an d wi tn es se se s ar e p ro te ct edfro m ha ras sm en t. See Fed . R. Evi d. 6 11 (a). “ The di sc ha rg e o f th is res po ns ib il it y ne ces sa ril y

en ta il s the ex erci se of d is cret io n.”

Br own, Hill, Far

mer, a nd Powers adopt this argument. David Thomas attempts to do so 1 8 but cannot bec ause he waived his right to appeal his convic tion. See supra, n.11. 66Han ey

v. Mi zel l M em ’l Hos p., 7 44 F.2d14 67 ,14 77 (11 th Cir . 19 84 ). Andth at di sc ret io n i s b ro ad
. Inco nduc ti ng a tr ia l, the jud ge “ m ay co m m en t o n t he ev id en ce, m ay qu es ti on witne ss es an d e li ci t fa ct s n oty etad du cedor c la rif y th os e p rev io us ly pr es en te d, an d m ay

m ai nt ai n t he pa ce o f th e tr ia l b y in te rrupt in g o r cu tt in g o ff
co un se l as a m at te r of

di sc ret io n.” Mo or e v . Uni te d S ta te s, 5 98 F.2d43 9, 4 42 (5t h Ci r. 19 79 ) (ci ta ti on s o m it te d) . The tria l co urt ab us es it s d is cret io n “ [o ]nly whe n

1 9 th e jud ge ’s con du ctst rays fro m ne ut ral it y ,” id ., andev enth enon ly whe n i ts rem ark s d em on st rat e “pe rv as iv e b ia s an d u nf ai rn es s” th atactua ll y

pre jud ic e a pa rty, Unit edSta te s v . Ram ire z-Ch il el , 28 9 F .3d74 4, 7 50 n.6 (11 th Cir . 20 02 ). Inth is cas e th e d is tri ctco urt’s co m m en ts were n otde ro ga to ry or di sp arag in g, an d n on e o f th em were ab ou t t he cred ib il it y of wi tn es se s o r th e subs ta nc e o f an y

ev id en ce. The y

were d ire ct iv es to de fen se co un se l ai m edat
m ov in g t hi ng s al on g. Th ere i s n o l ik el ih oo d tha t t he st at em en ts m ad e in th e pr es en ce o f th e jury leditto be li ev e th atth e jud ge was b ia se d a ga in stan y of the de fen da nt s. Th atis esp eci al ly true gi ve n t ha t t he jud ge was e ve nh an de d, d ire ct in g as m an y co m m en ts an d re pr im an ds at t he go ve rn m en t’s at to rn ey s as he di d a t de fen se co un se l. Fo r ex am pl e, on m or e th anon e o ccas io n t he jud ge sco ld edth e
In Bonne r v. City

of Prichar d, 661 F.2d 1206 ( 11th Cir. 1981) (en ba nc), w e adopte d as 1 9 binding pr ece dent the dec isions of the former Fifth Circuit issued bef

ore O ctober

1, 1981. 67go ve rn m en t at to rn ey s fo r pr es en ti ng cu m ul at iv e ev id en ce o r ot he rwis e d el ay in g th e p ro ceed in gs . The jud ge als o i ns tru ct edth e jury to d is reg ardan y of t he
co m m en ts he m ad e to co un se l dur in g t ria l, an d we p res um e th e jury fol lo wedth os e in st ru ct io ns . See St on e, 9 F .3dat 9 38
. Co ns id eri ng th e rec or d a s a wh ol e, Newm anv. A.E. Stal ey Mfg . Co., 6 48 F.2 d 3 30 , 33 4– 35 (5t h C ir. Un itB. 19 81 ), we co nc lu de th at“ [t]he act io ns of the tri al co urt ch al le ng edhe re am ou ntto no m or e th anatt em pt s b y th e p res id in g ju dg e to ex pe di te th e p ro ceed in gs ,” Uni te d S ta te s v . Hil l, 4 96 F.2d20 1, 2 02 (5t h C ir. 19 74 ). Andwhen we sa y th atth e jud ge was t ry in g t o “ ex pe di te ” th e tr ia l, we
m ean th athe was t ry in g t o k eep itfro m bo gg in g d own . There were a d oz en de fen da nt s b ei ng joi nt ly trie d o n ato ta l o f 18 7 c ou nt s, i nv ol vi ng m or e th an30 0 tra ns act io ns , andm or e th ana do zen att orne y s wer e p art ic ip at in g i n t he tri al . As it
was , th e p res en ta ti on of e vi de nc e al on e to ok31 tri al da y s, an d i f th e jud ge ha d n ot ke pta fi rm

ha ndon th e whe el , th e tr ia l m ig htha ve sk id de d o ff the roa d; th e jou rn ey to jud gm en t ce rta in ly w ou ldha ve tak enm uc h l on ge r th anitdi d. Ev enif th e jud ge was u nd ers ta nd ab ly a lit tl e im pa ti en t atti m es , we hav e ex pl ai ne d b efo re th at“ anoc cas io na l l ap se of p at ie nc e fro m th e b en ch wil l n otsu ffi ce t o o ve rtu rna co nv ic ti on returne d a fte r a fu ll an d fa ir p res en ta ti on of t he ev id en ce.” Id . There
was no rus h t o ju dg m en t. 68B. The Di st ric t Co urt’s En co ur ag em en t t o S ti pu la te

Norwere an y

of t he de fen da nt s ra il ro ad ed . Van M ers be rg enco nt en ds th at he was, ar gu in g t ha t h e was de pr iv edof due pro ces s b ecau se th e d is tri ctco urt th reat en edto pu ni sh th e d efen da nt s atsen te nc in g i f th ey refu se d t o a gr ee t o reas on ab le st ip ul at io ns in ord er t o e xp ed it e th e tr ia l p ro ceed in gs . Van 2 0 Mer sb erg enfoc us es on th is co m m en t b y th e d is tri ctco urt: The Co urt: W el l, th e fai lu re to ag ree to reas on ab le an d us ua l st ip ul at io ns is no t te ch ni cal ly an ob st ru ct io n of jus ti ce bu t it ’s cert ai nl y a fact or th at I can co ns id er in futur e pr oc eed in gs , if th ere are any in th is cas e. Who wou ldn’t ag ree t o t he st ip ul at io ns ? Ms . Nelan : I b el ie ve itwas M r. Farm er. . . . Farm er ag reedto so m e st ip ul at io ns bu t n otto othe rs . He sti pu la te d t o t he
au th en ti ci ty of se ve ral ch eck s an d t o t he tes ti m on y of s ev eral bo rro wers ; h e de cl in edto st ip ul at e to th e te st im on y of o ffi ci al s fr om

th e d efraud edlen de rs . W e h av e st at edth at“ [f]ede ral law p la ces no li m it at io n o n t he in fo rm at io n whi cha co urt ca n c on si de r in de te rm in in g a n app ro pr ia te sen te nc e.” Uni te d S ta te s v. Ro dr ig ue z, 76 5 F .2d15 46 , 15 54 –5 5 (1 1t h C ir. 1 98 5) (ci ti ng 18 U.S.C. § 3 66 1 (o rig in al ly enact edas 1 8 U.S.C. § 35 77 )). To the same effectis 18 U.S.C. § 3 66 1, whi chpro vi de s: “

No l im it at io n s ha ll be pl acedon th e in fo rm at io n c on cern in g t he
Br own, Hill, Far

mer, a nd Powers adopt this argument. David Thomas attempts to do so 2 0 but cannot bec ause he waived his right to appeal his convic tion. See supra, n.11. 69ba ck gr ou nd , cha ract er, an d c on du ctof ape rs on co nv ic te d o f anoff en se whi ch a co urt o f th e Uni te d S ta te s m ay rece iv e an d c on si de r fo r th e p ur po se of i m

po si ng an ap pr op ria te sen te nc e.” 1 8 U.S.C. § 36 61
. W e h av e rec og ni zed , ho wev er, tha t i n s pi te of § 36 61 ’s bro adlan gu ag e, a

“ se nt en ci ng co urt ca nn otco ns id er ag ai ns t a d efen dantan y co ns ti tu ti on al ly pr ot ect edco nduc t.” Un it edSta te s v . Rod rig ue z, 95 9 F .2d19 3, 1 97 (11 th Cir
. 19 92 ) (quo ta ti onm ark s o m it te d) ; s ee al so U.S.S.G. § 1 B1 .4 (“ Inde te rm in in g t he
se nt en ce t o i m

po se withi n t he gu id el in e ran ge , or wh ethe r a d ep artur e fro m th e gu id el in es is warran te d, the co urt m ay co ns id er, wit ho utli m it at io n, an y in fo rm at io n c on cern in g t he ba ck gr ou nd , cha ract er an d c on du ctof t he de fen da nt , un le ss ot he rwis e p ro hi bi te d b y law.”) (em

ph as is ad de d) ; Un it edSta te s v . Bur go s, 27 6 F .3d12 84 , 12 91 –9 2 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 1) . If on e co ns id ers a cri m in al de fen da nt ’s fai lu re t o s ti pu la te to be th e ex erci se of aco ns ti tu ti on al rig ht , itwou ldsee m th at in crea si ng a de fen da nt ’s sen te nc e b ecau se of h is fai lu re t o s ti pu la te cro ss es th e li ne . Butso m e o f th e li ne s i n t hi s ar ea ar e b lu rry . In Un it edSta te s v . Mal ek zad eh , 85 5 F .2d14 92 (11 th Cir . 19 88 ), th e de fen da ntarg ue d t ha t s he ha d b een pu ni sh edforex erci si ng he r co ns ti tu ti on al rig ht
no t t o t es ti fy

be cau se th e se nt en ci ng co urt g av e h er a l on ge r se nt en ce as a res ul t o f he r refu sa l t o t es ti fy

ag ai ns t the m ansh e co ns id eredhe r hu sb an d. Id . at 1 49 8.

70Bec au se itwas ajoi nttri al , id . at 1 49 4, t he de fen da ntwou ldhave ha d t o p le ad

gu il ty in o rd er t o t es ti fy

ag ai ns t t he m anwho was h er co -d efen dant . W e d idno t di sp ut e wha t s he cla im edha d h ap pe ne d, b utwe reject edhe r arg um en t o n t he gr ou ndth at“ a co urt i s ab so lu te ly ent it le d t o c on si de r a d efen da nt ’s fai lure t o co op erat e.” Id . W e ci te d fo r th atpro po si ti on Ro be rts v. Un it edSta te s, 4 45 U.S. 55 2, 1 00 S.Ct . 13 58 (19 80 ). In R ob ert s t he Supr em e Co urt h el d t ha t a c ou rt c ou ld le ng th ena de fen da nt ’s term of i m pr is on m en t b y

im po si ng co ns ecu ti ve in st eadof
co nc urren t s en te nc es be cau se he ha d re fu se d t o c oo pe rat e in th e in ve st ig at io n o f
an ot he r cri m e in whi ch he was aco nf es se d p art ic ip an t. We int erp ret edth e Ro be rts de ci si on as b ei ng ba se d o n the sen te nc in g c ou rt’s n eed“ to rewardth os e who ha d
co op erat edan d t o e nc ou rag e th os e who m ig htco op erat e inth e fu tu re.” Mal ek zad eh , 85 5 F .2dat 1 49 8. Th atth os e who fai l t o c oo pe rat e rec ei ve lo ng er se nt en ces th anth os e who are equa ll y cu lp ab le bu t d o c oo pe rat e is anin ev it ab le pr oduc t o f en co ur ag in g c oo pe rat io n. Tha t p rin ci pl e is writ te n t hr ou gh ou t o ur cri m in al law. Fo r ex am

pl e, th e Supr em e Co urt h as he ldth atitis en ti rel y pe rm is si bl e fo r pr os ecu to rs to th reat ena de fen da ntwith aha rs he r ch arg e carry in g am uc h l on ge r se nt en ce i n o rd er t o pr es su re h im

in to pl ead in g g ui lt y , andth encarry th ro ug h wi th th e th reatwhen th e de fen da ntha s t he tem eri ty to i ns is t o n h is co ns ti tu ti on al rig htto tri al
. 71Bo rd en ki rch er v . Hay es , 43 4 U.S. 3 57 , 98 S.Ct . 66 3 (1 97 8)
. Andth e se nt en ci ng

gu id el in es rewardth os e who acce ptres po ns ib il it y , th e ch ie f in di ci a o f whi ch is th atth ey he lp edth e p ro se cu ti on ge t t he cas e to th e se nt en ce s ta ge m or e eff ic ie nt ly by ple ad in g g ui lt y . See U.S.S.G. § 3 E1.1
. A di st in ct io n m ig htbe dra wn b etweenth e carro t an d t he st ic k, b etween rewar di ng a de fen da ntforgi vi ng up rig ht s t o wh ic h h e is en ti tl edon on e h an d, an d pu ni sh in g h im

for refu si ng to gi ve up th os e ri gh ts on th e o th er. The arg um en t ag ai ns t tha t d is ti nc ti on is th atth e res ul t fo r th e d efen da ntis th e sa m e. If a de fen da ntrece iv es a se nt en ce o f 10 0 m on th s b ecau se he wentto tri al whi le hi s equa ll y cu lp ab le co -d efen da ntge ts 50 m on th s b ecau se he co op erat edby ple ad in g gu il ty, is a st ic k b ei ng adm in is te redto th e d efen da ntor acarr otbe in g g iv ento th e co -d efen da nt ? Wha te ve r m ay

be sai d abo utth e u se of s ti ck s, the law s eem s t o b e cl ear t ha t he who rece iv es a br eakha s g ot te n acarro t, an d t he re i s n ot hi ng wron g wi th do li ng th em

ou t. An d t ha t i s en ou gh to de ci de th is cas e. At tria l, the di st ric t co urt so m et im es ex pr es se d i ts sen ti m en t re ga rd in g s ti pu la ti on s b y in di cat in g t ha t co op erat io n wo ul d re su ltin a lo wer s en te nc e, an d a t o th er t im es by ind ic at in g t ha t fai lu re t o c oo pe rat e wou ldres ul t i n ahi gh er o ne . At s en te nc in g, h owe ve r, th ere were o nl y carr ot s —co op erat io n was reward edall aro un d. Th e co urt s pe ci fic al ly 72to ldHil l, Po wers , Van M ers be rg en , Tho m as , andFarm er tha t ea ch of t he m

rece iv edlo wer s en te nc es th anth ey ot he rwis e wou ldha ve be cau se each ha d a gr eed to reas on ab le an d app ro pr ia te st ip ul at io ns du rin g t he tri al
. VanMers be rg enin si nu at es th atpre jud ic e n ev erthe le ss res ul te d b ecau se th e co urt d idin factpu ni sh Farm er fo r hi s re fu sa l t o e nt er i nt o s om e o f th e st ip ul at io ns , see supr a at 72 , as e vi de nc edby the di sp ari ty betweenFarm er’s
se nt en ce (1 27 m on th s) an d B ro wn’s (5 m on th s)
. The re co rd , ho wev er, ref le ct s 2 1 th atth e d is tri ctco urt ex pl ic it ly stat edth atitsen te nc edFarm er t owa rd s t he lo w end of hi s g ui de li ne s ra ng e (1 21 –1 51 m on th s) be cau se he ha d e nt eredin to reas on ab le st ip ul at io ns th atsh orte ne d t he tri al , whi ch reduc edth e co st s t o t he go ve rn m en t i n ti m e an d m on ey . The co urt d idno t i nt im at e th atitwas i m po si ng a lo ng er s en te nc e be cau se Farm er h adno t en te redin to so m e o f th e o th er s ti pu la ti on s. The go ve rn m en t al so po in ts ou t t ha t Fa rm er d es erv eda m uc h l on ge r se nt en ce tha n B ro wn b ecau se he pa rti ci pa te d i n fa r m or e tr an sa ct io ns th ansh e d id
. The co urt ad equa te ly exp la in edit s re as on s fo r bo thsen te nc es , andth os e rea so ns di d n otin vo lv e a d iff

eren ce i n t he nu m

be r of st ip ul at io ns th e two de fen da nt s en te redin to . The rea so ns th e co urt g av e fo r Farm er’s s en te nc e (wh ic h was , as we ha ve m en ti on ed , near th e b ot to m of t he gu id el in es ran ge ) in cl ud edth e m ag ni tu de Of c ourse, Va

n Mersbe rg en has no standingto complain about what ha ppened to 2 1 Fa rmer, but his argument on this iss ue has be en adopte d by Fa rmer, so w e will consider the argument as though it were in Far mer’s own brief.

73of

th e cri m e, th e lo ss in vo lv ed , andFarm er’s l ackof r em or se . As fo r Bro wn, the
co urt ex pl ai ne d t ha t i t was sen te nc in g h er t o o nl y fiv e m on th s wh enth e g ui de li ne s reco m m en de d asen te nc e b etween63 an d 7 8 m on th s b ecau se of “ he r ex tra or di na ry la ckof p ro fit ” an d b ecau se th e am ou ntof l os s g ro ss ly ove rs ta te d h er cr im in al
co nduc t co m

pa redto th atof t he ot he r de fen da nt s. Th os e are reas on ab le ba se s fo r th e d iff eren ce i n s en te nc es im

po se d o n F arm er an d B ro wn. C. Po wers ’ Co nt en ti on s Po wers co nt en ds th atth e d is tri ctco urt ab us edit s d is cret io n i n v ari ou s ru li ng s o n h is ob

jecti on s an d m ot io ns rel at in g t o e vi de nt ia ry m at te rs . Firs t, Po wers co nt en ds th atth e co urt ab us edit s d is cret io n i n p rev en ti ng hi m fro m at ta ck in g the cred ib il it y

of o ne of t he go ve rn m en t’s wi tn es se s. Eli zab eth Ru sc ia no , a st raw b orro wer, h adtes ti fie d t ha t s he ap pl ie d fo r lo an s u si ng Po wers an d Wayne Jen ki ns as h er l oa n o ffi cers on sep arat e o ccas io ns bu t t ha t s he was co m pl et el y un aware th atth e ap pl ic at io ns th ey fil le d o utforhe r co nt ai ne d frau du le ntin fo rm at io n. Dur in g h is cro ss -ex am in at io n o f W ayne Jen ki ns , Powe rs ’
co un se l s ou gh t t o e li ci t t es ti m on y th atin real it y

Ru sc ia no was c om

pl ic itin
co nc oc ti ng th e fraudul en t l eas e u se d i n t he lo ansh e o bt ai ne d t hr ou gh Jen ki ns . The di st ric t co urt cu t s ho rt t hi s l in e o f qu es ti on in g, ex pl ai ni ng th atitwas

“ rem ot e,” “ in co ns eque nt ia l,” a nda “ ne ed le ss ex pe nd itur e o f ti m e” b ecau se 74whe th er o r no t Ru sc ia no ha d c on sp ire d wi th Jen ki ns was i rrel ev an t t o wh ethe r

Po wers ha d p rep aredfrau du le ntlo anap pl ic at io ns forhe r. Thatwas n otanab us e of di sc ret io n. Po wers als o a rg ue s t ha t the co urt’s co m m en ts when rul in g o n t ha t m at te r so pr ejud ic edhi m

th atth e co urt s ho ul d h av e g ran te d am is tri al . Evenim pr op er co m m en ts by a j ud ge warran t re ve rs al on ly if th ey ha d s uc h apre

jud ic ia l ef

fecton th e jury tha t the y

de ni edth e d efen da nta fai r tr ia l. Un it edSta te s v . Tam pa s, 4 93 F.3 d 1 29 1, 1 30 3 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 7) . The co m m en ts th atPo wers co m

pl ai ns ab ou t co ul d n otha ve ha d any effecton th e jury becaus e th ey were m ad e o ut si de it s pr es en ce. Alt ho ug h the co urt d idaskPo wers ’ at to rn ey in th e p res en ce o f th e jury ab ou t the rel ev an ce o f hi s l in e o f qu es ti on in g, t ha t was anen ti rel y pro pe r qu es ti on an d c ou ldno t h av e unf

ai rly preju di cedth e jury. See Tam pa s, 4 93 F.3dat 1 30 3 (“ [T]he b rie f qu es ti on to de fen se co un se l i n t he co nt ex t o f anev id en ti ary ob jecti on ha d n o c le ar ef

fecton th e jury.”). And , as we h av e m en ti on edbe fo re, the co urt in st ru ct edth e jury to d is reg ardan y co m m en ts by it o r th e at to rn ey s. Po wers als o c on te nd s t ha t h e was pre jud ic edby thre e st at em en ts or co m m en ts on e o f th e p ro se cu to rs m ad e atth e tr ia l: a qu es ti onab ou t Po wers be in g te rm in at edfro m

hi s jo b a t Fi rs t Re al ty Mort ga ge ; t he pro se cu to r’s st at em en t t o t he
co urt ab ou t a que st io n s he want edto aska witne ss ab ou t Po wers ’ in co m e; andth e 75pr os ecu to r’s m en ti on of e vi de nc e rel at edto a di sm is se d c ou ntdu rin g c lo si ng

arg um en ts . “ Pro se cu to ria l m is co nduc t re qu ire s a n ew tr ia l o nl y if we fi ndth e rem ark s (1 ) were i m

pr op er an d (2 ) pr ejud ic edth e d efen da nt ’s subs ta nt iv e ri gh ts . Inord er t o a ss es s t he pre

jud ic ia l i m

pa ctof apro se cu to r’s st at em en ts , we m us t ev al ua te th em

in th e co nt ex t o f th e tr ia l as a who le an d a ss es s t he ir p ro babl e im pa cton th e jury.” Unit edSta te s v . Hern an de z, 14 5 F .3d14 33 , 14 38 (11 th Cir
. 19 98 ). Fora pr os ecu to r’s pr ejud ic ia l co m m en ts to affe cta de fen da nt ’s subs ta nt ia l rig ht s, the re m

us t b e a rea so nabl e p ro babi li ty tha t, b utforth e rem ark s, the
ou tc om e wou ldha ve be endi ffer en t. Un it edSta te s v . Hall , 47 F.3d10 91 , 10 98 (1 1t h C ir. 1 99 5)
. Co ns id eri ng th e p il e o f ev id en ce p ro vi ng th e p ro se cu to r’s cas e ag ai ns t Po wers , eve n i f we were t o a ss um e th athe r rem ark s o r qu es ti on s wer e im pr op er, Po wers ha s n otde m on strat edth athi s s ub st an ti al rig ht s wer e p reju di ced , pa rti cu la rly in l ig htof the co urt’s i ns tru ct io ns to th e jury to d is reg ardany co m m en ts m ad e b y

th e at to rn ey s dur in g t he tri al . See Hal l, 4 7 F .3dat 1 09 8. Fi na ll y , Powe rs co nt en ds th atth e d is tri ctco urt erredby den y in g h is m ot io n fo r a m is tri al ba se d o n the pro se cu to r’s refe ren ce t o e vi de nc e ab ou t Co un t 3 3, a ch arg e th atha d a lre ady

be endi sm is se d (o n t he go ve rn m en t’s m ot io n b ecau se it

76li st edth e wro ng len de r). Po wers fai le d t o o bjec t t o t he pro se cu to r’s st at em en t, an d

th atst at em en t d idno t ri se (orsi nk ) to th e le ve l o f pl ai n e rro r. 2 2 VII. Ju ry Ins tru ct io n Is su es Bro wn, Fa rm er, Hil l, an d Van Mers be rg ench al le ng e th e d is tri ctco urt’s refu sa l t o g iv e so m e o f th ei r reque st edjury in st ru ct io ns . Hil l as ke d fo r on e ab ou t 2 3 go odfai th rel ia nc e o n t he advi ce o f co un se l as a de fen se , whi ch th e d is tri ctco urt reject edon th e b as is th atth ere was in su ffi ci en t ev id en ce t o s up po rt i t. All of t he de fen da nt s re qu es te d age ne ral in st ru ct io n o n g oo d fa it h. Th e g ov ern m en t d idno t op po se on e, ex cep t as to th e 1 8 U.S.C. § 10 14 fal se cred itap pl ic at io n c ha rg es ; i t as ke d t ha t the go odfai thin stru ct io n b e m od ifi edso th atitdi d n otap pl y to th e § 10 14 ch arg es . The g ov ern m en t al so ask edth atth e g oo d fa it h i ns tru ct io n i nc lu de a cav eatto th e eff

ectth atig no ran ce o f th e la w was n ota de fen se . The co urt g ran te d th e g ov ern m en t’s re qu es ts an d i ss ue d am od ifi edgo odfai thin st ru ct io n t ha t in cl ud edth e so -cal le d “ ig no ran ce o f th e la w” in st ru ct io n.

Powers also c ontends that eve n if no single rulingor occ urre nce a bout which he 2 2 complains deprive d him of a fa ir trial, the cumulative e ffe ct of a ll of them did. See United States v. Ba ker, 432 F .3d 1189, 1223 (11th Cir. 2005). We disagree . Powers may not have g otten a perf ect tria l, but he was not entitled to one. See United States v. Ramirez, 426 F.3d 1344, 1353 (11th Cir. 2005) (“ A def

endant is entitled to a fa ir trial but not a per fec t one.”) (quotation marks omitted). He did re ceive a fa ir trial. David Thomas a lso makes this argument, but we ca nnot consider it as to him beca use he 2 3 waived his right to appeal his convic tion. See supra, n.11. 77The co urt al so gra nt ed , ov er the de fen da nt s’ ob jecti on s, the go ve rn m en t’s reque stforanin st ru ct io n re ga rd in g d el ib erat e ig no ran ce. Bro wn an d P owe rs arg ue th atwas e rro r. The co urt d en ie d a s ar gu m en ta ti ve Po wers ’ reque stfora th eo ry of d efen se ch arg e, an d h e arg ue s t ha t was erro r. Whi le we rev ie w de n ov o i ss ue s ab ou t wh ethe r th e co nt en t o f in stru ct io ns th atwere g iv enare co rrec t s ta te m en ts of l aw, Uni te d S ta te s v . Cha nd le r, 99 6 F .2d 10 73 , 10 85 (11 th Cir . 19 93 ), we rev ie w on ly for an ab us e o f di sc ret io n adi st ric t co urt’s re fu sa l t o g iv e a reque st edjury in st ru ct io n. Se e Uni te d S ta te s v . Sira ng , 70 F.3 d 5 88 , 59 3 (1 1t h C ir. 1 99 5) . W e wil l re ve rs e a d is tri ctco urt’s re fu sa l t o g iv e anin st ru ct io n o nl y

if: “ (1 ) th e reque st edin st ru ct io n was a co rrec t s ta te m en t o f th e la w, (2) i ts subjec t m at te r was no t s ub st an ti al ly cov eredby oth er i ns tru ct io ns , and (3 ) it s s ub ject m atte r de al t wi th anis su e inth e tr ia l co urt t ha t was so im po rta ntth at fai lu re t o g iv e itser io us ly im pa ire d t he de fen dant ’s abi li ty to d efen d h im se lf.” Uni te d S ta te s v . Jo rd an , 58 2 F .3d12 39 , 12 47 –4 8 (1 1th C ir. 2 00 9) ; s ee al so Sir an g, 70 F.3dat 5 93
. A. Hill ’s Pro po se d In st ru ct io n abo utGoo d F ai th Rel ianc e o n Ad vi ce o f Co un se l Hil l ar gu es th atbe cau se he us edatt orne y s fo r m os t o f th e fraudul en t tra ns act io ns an d c lo si ng s, h e was en ti tl edto rel y on th ei r im

pl ie d a dv ic e th atwhat

78he was d oi ng was l eg al
. He reque st edth atth e jury be i ns tru ct edth atgo odfai th 2 4 rel ia nc e o n h is co un se l’s ad vi ce was a co m pl et e d efen se to th e ch arg es ag ai ns t hi m . The g ov ern m en t o pp os edth e in st ru ct io n o n the gro un d t ha t i t wo ul d b e m is le ad in g b ecau se Hil l’s at to rn ey s wer e al so co -co ns pi rat or s. Th e d is tri ctco urt de ni edHil l’s re qu es t, fi nd in g t ha t t he re was in su ffi ci en t ev id en ce t o s up po rt t he in st ru ct io n b ecau se th ere h adbe enno tes ti m on y th atany of t he de fen da nt s ac tu al ly di d re ly on a dv ic e o f co un se l. Inde nyin g Hi ll ’s po st -tr ia l m ot io n fo r acqui tt al , th e di st ric t co urt re it erat edth atth ere was no ev id en ce t o s up po rt t he in st ru ct io n. It ad de d tha t the frau d was ob vi ou s fr om th e fac e o f th e d oc um en ts an d tha t t he at to rn ey s wh o t es ti fie d abo utth e res id en ti al m ortg ag e fraudsch em e were a dm it te d
co -co ns pi rat or s. Inord er t o qua li fy

foranin st ru ct io n o n g oo d fa it h re li an ce o n t he advi ce o f
co un se l, a d efen da ntm

us t s ho w th at(1) he ful ly dis cl os edto hi s at to rn ey all
m at eri al fact s t ha t ar e rel ev an t t o t he advi ce fo r whi ch he co ns ul te d t he att orne y ; an d (2 ) th erea fte r, he rel ie d i n g oo d fa it h o n a dv ic e g iv enby his att orne y . See Uni te d S ta te s v . Mil es , 29 0 F .3d13 41 , 13 54 (11 th Cir . 20 02 ); Un it edSta te s v . Co nd on , 13 2 F .3d65 3, 6 56 (11 th Cir . 19 98 ); Un it edSta te s v . Jo hn so n, 7 30 F.2d 68 3, 6 86 (11 th Cir . 19 84 ). Br own, Fa

rmer, a nd Van Me rsber g en adopt this argument. David Thomas a ttempts to 2 4 do so but cannot bec ause hewaived his right to appeal his convic tion. See supra, n.11. 79Alt ho ug h t he bu rd enon a de fen da ntto pu t fo rth su ffi ci en t ev id en ce t o

supp ort a p ro po se d ju ry

in st ru ct io n i s l ow, Un it edSta te s v . Rui z, 59 F.3d11 51 , 11 54 (11 th Cir . 19 95 ), Hil l fa il edto m eetitbe cau se th ere was no ev id en ce t o supp ort the in st ru ct io n. Hi ll po in ts ou t t ha t at to rn ey s wer e u se d b y m an y of h is

“ in ve st or s” as we ll as b y

th e le nd ers , andhe was p ers on al ly repre se nt edby at le as t fiv e d iff eren t at to rn ey s o ve r th e co ur se of t he ev en ts . At no po in t, h owe ve r, di d
an y of t he att orne y s ad vi se Hil l tha t t he ov eral l s ch em e o r al l o f it s es se nt ia l
co m po ne nt s wer e le ga l. Hil l ar gu es th athe rel ie d o n t he advi ce o f at to rn ey s Dewre ll an d S ack s wi th
res pe ctto Co un ts 1– 14 , whi ch ch arg edhi m with t he li ne of c red itfrau d o n C ha rte r Ban k. Bo th of t ho se att orne y s t es ti fie d, b utth ey di d n otsay tha t t he y

ha d rep res en te d Hi ll in hi s d eal in gs with C ha rte r, orth atth ey ha d re vi ewedan d advi se d Hi ll ab ou t the fal se st at em en ts on th e cre di t ap pl ic at io ns , th e fal se st at em en ts on Hil l’s an d Gra ha m ’s fin an ci al st at em en ts , or t he fal se st at em en ts th at Hil l m ad e to Hun ge rfo rd , a vi ce p res id en t o f Ch art er Ba nkwho ha d re qu es te d
as su ran ces th atHil l’s l in es of c red itwere s uf fic ie nt ly secu red
. Att orne y s Dewre ll an d S ack s d idtes ti fy th atth ey advi se d Hi ll co nc ern in g th e fo rm at io n a ndbu si ne ss of At la nt a Co nd o a ndAtl an taMi ll en iu m (th e Hil lco nt ro ll eden ti ti es in vo lv edinth e Ch art er Ba nkfrau d) , andth atth ey advi se d h im 80ab ou t h is pe rs on al tra ns act io ns with Var ga s (h is co -co ns pi rat orat C ha rte r who

he lp edhi m

ge t the li ne s o f cre di t). Tho se tra ns act io ns were n ot , ho wev er, the ba si s o f th e fraudch arg es . Hill ha s n otpo in te d t o asi ng le pi ece o f ev id en ce in di cat in g tha t h e fu ll y

di sc lo se d t o a ny att orne y th e m at eri al fact s re le va ntto hi s ob ta in in g t he li ne s o f cre di t fr om Ch art er Ba nk , or a ny evi de nc e in di cat in g t ha t
an y att orne y advi se d h im

th athi s fr au du le ntrep res en ta ti on s t o C ha rte r were l eg al
. So , no advi ce o f co un se l i ns tru ct io n was warran te d o n C ou nt s 1 –1 4. Hil l al so arg ue s t ha t h e rel ie d upo n t he advi ce o f hi s co -co ns pi rat or at to rn ey s Hal co m

b andW ol f wit h re sp ectto Co un ts 19 –1 87 , cha rg in g h im with th e m ul ti -p ro pe rty m ortg ag e fraud . Halco m b a ndW ol f bo th tes ti fie d, h owe ve r, th atat n o t im e d idth ey

be li ev e th atHil l h adco m e to th em foradvi ce, an d the y sp eci fic al ly den ie d e ve r gi vi ng hi m anop in io n a s t o t he leg al it y of tho se tra ns act io ns . Give n t he lac k o f ev id en ce t o s up po rt a n a dv ic e o f co un se l in st ru ct io n, t he di stric t co urt’s re fu sa l t o g iv e o ne was n otanab us e o f di sc ret io n. 2 5

B. The Go odFai th Ins tru ct io n Th atW as Giv en Acco rd in g t o Hi ll , th e co urt’s i ns tru ct io n o n g oo d fa it h a s a d efen se was erro ne ou s b ecau se itdi d n otco ve r th e fal se cred itap pl ic at io n c ou nt s, an d b ecau se We need not re ach the g overnme nt’s alternative arguments that the instruction was 2 5 properly ref used bec ause the fra

ud was obvious and ther efor e the r eliancecould not have be en in g ood faith, or that a

defe ndant may

not claim g ood faith re liance on a dvice of counsel whe re the counsel wa s a co- conspirator who par ticipated in the fr aud.

81it s ef

fectwas n otst ro ng en ou gh to su rv iv e th e g ov ern m en t’s cl os in g a rg um en t tha t

“ ig no ran ce o f th e la w is no t a d efen se .” W e rejectbo th of t ho se arg um en ts . 2 6 1. Re fu sa l t o In st ru cton Goo d F ai thas t o t he Sect io n 1 01 4 C ha rg es Hil l as ke d t he co urt t o g iv e th e p at te rnjury in stru ct io n o n g oo d fa it h a s a de fen se to all of t he ch arg es inth e in di ct m en t. The co urt g av e th atin st ru ct io n a s to all of t he frau d c ha rg es in th e in di ct m en t, ex cep t t he § 1 01 4 fa ls e cre di t ap pl ic at io n c ha rg es . At th e g ov ern m en t’s re qu es t, the co urt l eftth os e ch arg es ou t of th e sc op e o f th e g oo d fa it h i ns tru ct io n. Th is is whatth e co urt t ol d t he jury ab ou t g oo d fa it h a s a d efen se :

Lad ie s an d ge nt le m en , go od fai th is a co m pl et e de fen se t o th e ba nk , wire an d m ai l frau d ch arg es in th e in di ct m en t si nc e go od fai th on th e pa rt of th e de fen dant is in co ns is te nt with in te nt to de fra u d or wil lfu ln es s, wh ic h i s an ess en ti al pa rt o f su ch ch arg es . The bu rd en of pr oo f is no t o n t he de fen da nt to pr ov e go od fai th , of co ur s e , si nc e th e de fen da nt ha s no bu rd en to pr ov e an yth in g. The govern m en t m

us t es tabl is h be y on d a reas on ab le do ub t th at th e de fend ant act edwith s pe ci fic in te ntto de frau d a s ch arg edin th e in di ct m en t. One who ex pr es se s a n ho ne st ly he ld op in io n or an ho ne st ly fo rm ed be li ef is no t ch arg eab le wit h frau du le nt in te nt ev en th ou gh th e op in io n i s erro ne ou s o r th e b el ie f is m is ta ke n; an d, s im il arl y , evi de nc e

Br own also make s these same arguments about the g ood faith jury instruction, while 2 6 Fa rmer, L auder

mill, P ower s, and Va

n Mersbe rg en adopt Hill’s arguments on it. David Thomas attempts to do so but cannot beca use he w aived his right to appeal his convic tion. See supra, n.11.
82whi ch est ab li sh es on ly th at a pe rs on m ad e a m is ta ke in jud gm en t o r an

erro r in m an ag em en t or was care le ss do es no t es tabl is h frau du le nt in te nt . On th e ot he r ha nd , an ho ne st be li ef on th e pa rt of th e de f e nd an t th at a pa rti c u l a r bu si ne ss ve ntur e was so un d an d wou ld ul ti m at el y su ccee d wou ld no t in an d of it se lf co ns ti tu te go od fai th as th a t t e rm is us ed in th es e in st ru ct io ns if in carry in g ou t th at ve ntu r e th e de fen da nt kn owi ng ly m ad e f

a l s e o r frau du le nt rep res en ta ti on s to ot he rs wit h th e sp eci fic in te ntto de cei ve th em . (em ph as is ad de d) . Hill ’s com pl ai nt , as we s ai d, i s n otwith t he co nt en t o f th e g oo d fai th in st ru ct io n a s t o t he “ba nk , wire a ndm ai l fr au d c harg es in th e in di ct m en t,” bu t wi thth e fai lure t o i ns tru ctth e jury tha t g oo d fa it h i s al so a co m pl et e d efen se to th e § 10 14 cred itap pl ic at io n fr au d c ha rg es . W e as su m e fo r pr es en t p ur po se s t ha t go odfai th is a de fen se to th os e ch arg es , whi ch wou ldm eanth at“ th e reque st ed in st ru ct io n was a co rrec t s ta te m en t o f th e la w,” th e fi rs t re qu ire m en t fo r fi nd in g a n ab us e o f di sc ret io n b as edon a refu sa l t o g iv e a reque st edin st ru ct io n. J or dan, 5 82 F.3 d a t 1 24 7. Tha t as su m

pt io n wi th ou t m or e d oe s n ot , ho wev er, es tabl is h t ha t t he refu sa l to gi ve th e g oo d fa ith i ns tru ct io n a s t o the § 1 01 4 c ha rg es was a n abu se of di sc ret io n. As we ha ve ex pl ai ne d, t he “ fai lu re t o g iv e th e p ro ffer edin st ru ct io n o n go odfai th is no t p er s e err or[be cau se ] we m us t ex am in e th e fac ts of the cas e to de te rm in e th e ad equa cy

of t he in st ru ct io ns as awho le an d t he effe ctof t he
om is si on on th e d efen dant ’s cas e.” Si ran g, 7 0 F .3dat 5 94 . To m ov e th e an al y si s 83al on g, we wi ll ass um e th atth ere was anev id en ti ary ba si s fo r th e g oo d fa it h

in st ru ct io n o n t he § 1 01 4 c harg e in so far as Hil l (a ndth e o th er d efen da nt s wh o a re pu rs ui ng th is is su e) ar e co nc ern ed . Sti ll , inord er t o p rev ai l, the de fen da nt s m us t es tabl is h t ha t the subjec t m at te r of th e reque st edin st ru ct io n “ was no t s ub st an ti al ly
co ve redby oth er i ns tru ct io ns ,” an d t ha t i t “ de al t wi th anis su e in th e tr ia l co urt t ha t was so im po rta ntth atfai lu re t o g iv e itser io us ly im pa ire d the de fen dant ’s abi li ty to de fen d h im se lf.” Jo rd an , 58 2 F .3dat 1 24 7– 48 . Thatis wher e th ei r po si ti on fal te rs . The go odfai th de fen se forth e § 10 14 cri m e was subs ta nt ia ll y de al t wi th in th e in st ru ct io ns on th e el em en ts of t he cri m e an d o n t he de fin it io ns of t he requi red st at e o f m in d. Th is is whatth e co urt i ns tru ct edth e jury abo utth e el em en ts of t he § 10 14 cri m e: Now, la di es an d ge nt le m en , Tit le 18 , Uni te d St at es Co de Sect io n 10 14 m ak es it a fed eral cri m e or of fen se fo r an y on e to wil lfu ll y m ak e a fal se st at em en t t o afed eral ly ins ur edfin an ci al in st itut io n. The de fen da nt can be fo un d gu il ty of th at of fen se on ly if al l of th e fo ll owi ng fact s are pr ov ed be y on d a reas on ab le do ub t: F i r s t , th at th e de fen da nt kn owi ng ly m ad e a fal se st at em en t or rep ort to th e fi n an ci al in st itut io n d es cri be d i n t he in di ct m en t; sec on d, t ha t th e de po si ts of t he in st itut io n were in su red by th e Fed eral Dep os it In su ran ce Co rp or at io n; an d, th ird , th at th e de fen da nt m ad e th e fal se st at em en t or rep ort wil lfu ll y a n d wit h in te nt to in flu en ce th e act io n of th e in st itut io n up on a n ap pl ic at io n, adva nc e, co m m it m en t or lo an o r a n y ch an ge or ex te ns io n th ereo f. 84A st at em en t or rep ort is fal se whe n m ad e if it is un tru e an d is th en

kn own to be un tru e b y

th e p ers onm ak in g i t. It is no t ne ces sa ry , ho wev er, to pr ov e th at th e in st itut io n in vo lv ed was , in fact , in flu en ced or m is le d. The gi st of th e of fen se is an at te m

pt to in flu en ce su ch an in st itut io n by wil lfu ll y m ak in g a fal se st at em en t or rep ort co nc ern in g t he m at te r. (em ph as is ad de d)
. See El ev en th Cir cu itPat te rnJu ry Ins tru ct io ns (Cri m in al ) at 23 2– 33 , Offen se Ins tru ct io n 3 9 (West20 03 ). The de fin it io ns th e co urt g av e th e jury onth e k ey m en ta l s ta te term s wer e th es e: The wor d “ kn owi ng ly,” as th atterm is us edin th e in di ct m en t or in th es e in st ru ct io ns , m ean s th at th e act was do ne v o lu nt ari ly an d in te nt io na ll y

an d n otbe cau se of m is ta ke or a cci de nt . The wor d “ wil lfu ll y ,” as th at te rm is us ed in th e in di ct m en t or in th es e i n st ru ct io ns , m ean s th at th e act was co m m it te d vo lu nt ari ly an d pu rp os el y with th e sp eci fic in te nt to do so m ethi ng th e la w fo rb id s, th at is , with b adpu rp os e ei th er t o d is ob ey or d is reg ardth e la w. Whi le y ou m

us t fin d th at th e de fen da nt s act ed wil lfu ll y as I ha ve jus t i n s t ruc te d y ou , wil lfu ln es s do es no t requi re th at th e de fen da nt s sp eci fic al ly kn ow th at th e co nduc t al le ge d in th e in di ct m en t co ns ti tu te s a cri m in al v i o l a t i o n or sp eci fic al ly kn ow whi ch fed eral or st at e cri m in al —ex cu s e me, wh ic h fed eral or st at e cri m in al pr oh ib it io n su ch co nduc t m ay

vi ol at e. (em ph as is ad de d)
. The clo se stpre ced en t o n t hi s i ss ue is Uni te d S ta te s v . Mart in el li , 45 4 F .3d 13 00 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ), whe re we fo un d n o re ve rs ib le erro r un de r si m il ar 85ci rcu m st an ces . The d is tri ctco urt i n t ha t ca se refu se d t o g iv e th e d efen da nt ’s

pr of fere d i ns tru ct io n o n g oo d fa it h a s a d efen se to th e ch arg e o f co ns pi racy to laun de r m on ey . The co urt d id , ho wev er, i ns tru ctth e jury tha t t he de fen da nt“ ha d to kn ow t he m on ey

rep res en te d t he pro ceed s o f th e sp eci fie d u nl awfu l ac ti vi ty of
m ai l fr au d.” Id. at13 15 . The i ns tru ct io ns als o p ro pe rly defi ne d t he term

“ kn owi ng ly” so th at“ th e jury pla in ly hadto rul e o utth e p os si bi li ty tha t [the de fen da nt ] actua ll y

ha rb or eda go od -fai th be li ef i n t he leg it im acy of th e b us in es s be fo re i t co ul d h av e fo un d tha t h e kne w th e m on ey rep res en te d p ro ceed s o f m ai l frau d.” Id. at13 16 . “ Inothe r wor ds , bas edonth e in st ru ct io ns th e d is tri ctjud ge ga ve , if the jury co nc lu de d t ha t [t he de fen da nt ] ha d ago od -fai th be li ef i n t he le gi ti m acy of th e b us in es s, i t co ul d n otha ve fou ndth athe kn ew th e fu nd s wer e th e pr oc eed s o f m ai l fr au d.” Id. The same reaso ni ng ap pl ie s i n t hi s ca se . The co urt i ns tru ct edth e jury tha t th e d efen da nt s h adto ha ve m ad e th e fal se st at em en ts wil fu ll y an d wi th in te ntto in flu en ce the len de rs . The i ns tru ct io ns pro pe rly defi ne d “ wil fu ll y ” so th atth e jury pl ai nl y ha d t o ru le ou t the po ss ib il it y th atth e d efen da nt s ac tu al ly harb or eda go od fai th be li ef i n t he leg it im acy of th e sc he m e b efo re the jury co ul d h av e fo un d t ha t th ey m ad e th e fal se st at em en ts wil fu ll y an d wi th th e in te ntto in flu en ce the len de rs . See S irang , 70 F.3dat 5 95 (“ As we h av e sa id , th e fi nd in g o f sp eci fic in te ntto 86de cei ve cat eg or ic al ly excl ud es a fi nd in g o f go odfai th .”) Inot he r wor ds , bas edon

th e in st ru ct io ns th e d is tri ctjud ge ga ve , if the jury ha d c on cl ud edth atth e de fen da nt s h ada go odfai thbe li ef i n t he leg it im acy of th e sc he m e, itco ul d n ot ha ve fou ndth atth ey

m ad e th e fal se st at em en ts wil fu ll y an d wi th th e in te ntto in flu en ce the len de rs . The Ma rti ne ll i d eci si on an d c omm onsen se co m pe l t ha t co nc lu si on . It f ol lo ws tha t the in st ru ct io n o n g oo d fa it h a s a d efen se to th e § 10 14 ch arg e was “ subs ta nt ia ll y co ve redby oth er i ns tru ct io ns ,” Jo rd an , 58 2 F .3dat 12 47 , so th atth ere was no ab us e o f di sc ret io n i n fa il in g t o g iv e it , alt ho ug h we
no te , as t he Mart in el li op in io n d id , th at“ itwou ldha ve be enwis er t o i ns tru cton th e d efen se of g oo d fa ith.” Mart in el li , 45 4 F .3dat 1 31 7.

2. “ Ig no ran ce o f th e Law Is Nota Defen se ” Inad di ti on to m od ifyin g t he go odfai th in stru ct io n t o e xc lu de th e fal se cred itap pl ic at io n c ha rg es , th e d is tri ctco urt g ran te d t he go ve rn m en t’s re qu es t t o in cl ud e anad di ti on al in stru ct io n t o t he effe ctth atig no ran ce o f th e la w is no t a de fen se , alt ho ug h t he in st ru ct io ns di d n otus e th os e wor ds . The l an gu ag e ad de d t o th e in st ru ct io ns at t he go ve rn m en t’s re qu es t s ta te d t ha t:

Whi le y ou m

us t fin d th at th e de fen da nt s act ed wil lfu ll y as I ha ve jus t in st ru ct ed y ou , wil lfu ln es s do es no t requi re th at th e d e f e n da nt s sp eci fic al ly kn ow th at th e co nduc t al le ge d in th e in di ctm en t co ns ti tu te s a cri m in al vi ol at io n or s p e c i f ic al ly kn ow whi ch fed eral or st at e 87cri m in al —ex cu se m e, whi ch fed eral or st at e cri mi n a l pr oh ib it io n su ch

co nduc t m ay

vi ol at e. At cl os in g, t he go ve rn m en t p arap hr as edth is lan gu ag e b y arg ui ng to th e jury tha t

“ ig no ran ce o f th e la w is no t a d efen se .” Afte r Hil l ar gu edinclo si ng th athe ha d rel ie d i n g oo d fa it h o n t he advi ce o f hi s at to rn ey s, the go ve rn m en t re sp on de d b y ur gi ng th e jury to “ rem em be r, ig no ran ce o f th e la w is no t a d efen se .” A cou rt’s i m

pr op er jury

in st ru ct io n n eces si ta te s re ve rs al on ly if we are l eft wit h “ a subs ta nt ia l an d i ne rad ic ab le do ub t as to whet he r th e jury was pr op erl y gu id edin it s d el ib erat io ns .” Uni te d S ta te s v . Beas le y , 72 F.3d15 18 , 15 25 (11 th Ci r. 19 96 ). W e are no t co nv in cedth at , vi ewin g the ch arg es as awho le , th e jury
was co nf us edor m is gu id edby the co urt’s i nc lu si on of the ig no ran ce o f th e la w in st ru ct io n. Se e Eve ret t v . Carn iv al Cru is e Lin es , 91 2 F .2d13 55 , 13 58 (11 th Cir
. 19 90 ). The ju ry

was c orrect ly ins tru ct edas t o g oo d fa it h, ab ou t the m en ta l s ta te s requi redto su st ai n aco nv ic ti on , andth at“ wil lfu ln es s d oe s n otrequi re tha t t he Defen da nt s s pe ci fic al ly kno w th atth e co nduc t al le ge d i n t he in di ct m en t co ns ti tu te s a c riminal vi ol at io n.” (em ph as is ad de d) . W e fi ndno erro r in th at
co m bi na ti on of i ns tru ct io ns .

C. The Del ib erat e Ig no ran ce In st ru ct io n Po wers arg ue s t ha t the di st ric t co urt co m m it te d re ve rs ib le erro r by in st ru ct in g t he jury on de li be rat e ig no ran ce wh enth ere was no ev id en ti ary ba si s 88fro m

whi ch a jury cou ldha ve fou ndth athe was d el ib erat el y ig no ran t o f m at eri al fact s. Evenass um in g the re was no ev id en ce tha t Po wers was d el ib erat el y 2 7 ig no ran t an d fo r th atreas onth e in st ru ct io n s ho ul d n otha ve be engi ve n, i t was ha rm le ss to do so be cau se th ere was su ffi ci en t ev id en ce t o p ro ve be y on d a
reas on ab le do ub t tha t h e h adactua l kno wled ge . See Un it edSta te s v . Ste ed , 54 8 F.3 d 9 61 , 97 8 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 8) (de cl in in g t o a dd res s wh ethe r th e fac ts at t ria l
supp orte d ade li be rat e ig no ran ce i ns tru ct io n “ be cau se an y sh ortc om in g i n t he
ev id en ce ab ou t d el ib erat e ig no ran ce was ren de redha rm le ss by the su ffi ci en cy of th e ev id en ce o f actua l kno wled ge ”) (c it at io n andqu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) ; Un it ed St at es v. Ken na rd , 47 2 F .3d85 1, 8 58 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ) (“ [A]ny erro r in gi vi ng an un warra nt edde li be rat e ig no ran ce i ns tru ct io n i s h arm le ss if t he jury co ul d h av e co nv ic te d o n a n a lt ern at iv e, su ffi ci en tl y supp orte d t he ory

of a ctua l kno wled ge .”); Uni te d S ta te s v . Sto ne , 9 F.3 d 9 34 , 93 7– 41 (11 th Cir . 19 93 ) (s am e). 2 8 Br own also ra ises this iss ue in her brief, while Fa

rmer, H ill, and Van Mer sberg en 2 7 adopt it. (David Thomas attempts to adopt itbut cannot bec ause he waived his right to appeal his conviction. See supra , n.11.) For the sake of simplicity

and bec ause B rown make s substantially the same a

rguments as Powers, wewill refe r to this as Powers’ a rgument. The same principles and re sult apply

to the other de fenda

nts beca use for eac h of them there was e vidence of ac tual knowledg e, makingany

error in g iving the instruc tion on deliberate ignor anceharmless. We also note that there was some e vidence in the rec ord to support the district court’ s 2 8 deliberate ignoranc e instruction. J ohn Hain, Power s’ supervisor at First Realty Mortg ag e, indicated to Andr ew Wolf, one of H ill’s closing attorney s, that if asked he would deny that he had knowledg e that straw buyers ha d not supplied the down pay ments at their closing s. Wol f testified that in order

to “cove r [his] butt,” he and H ain exchang ed dra fts of a me mo that was designed to make it explicit that Hain did know about the fa lsified down pay ments. Wolf also testified that, while he ma y not have f

axed Powers a c opy

of the e -mail, he did have discussions with Powers at F irst Realty Mortg ag e. Combined with the evidenc e of Powe rs’ involvement, the

89D. Brown ’s Theo ry of De fen se Ins tru ct io n Bro wn ar gu es th atth e d is tri ctco urt erredin de cl in in g t o g iv e anin st ru ct io n on he r th eo ry

of d efen se th atsh e, as a ne w app rai se r, rel ie d i n g oo d fa it h o n h er em pl oyer’s supe rv is io n a ndgu id an ce. Bec au se Bro wn d idno t re qu es t s uc h a n in st ru ct io n o r ob

ject t o t he fai lu re t o g iv e o ne , our rev ie w is on ly for p la inerro r. Si ran g, 7 0 F .3dat 5 94 . There is no pl ai n e rro r fo r se ve ral reas on s, i nc lu di ng th e factth atth e p oi ntof l aw was subs ta nt ia ll y co ve redby the ge ne ral go odfai th in st ru ct io n t ha t the co urt d idgi ve .

E. Powers ’ The ory

of De fen se Ins tru ct io n Unl ik e Bro wn, Po wers di d re qu es t a s pe ci fic th eo ry of d efen se ch arg e. The di st ric t co urt co rrec tl y

co nc lu de d, h owe ve r, th atth e reque st edin st ru ct io n s ho ul d
no t b e g iv enbe cau se itwas l es s a t he ory of d efen se th ananarg um en t t ha t Po wers sh ou ldbe acqui tt ed
. See Un it edSta te s v . Parad ie s, 9 8 F .3d12 66 , 12 87 (11 th Cir
. 19 96 ) (h ol di ng th atth e d is tri ctco urt co rrec tl y refu se d areque st edin stru ct io n t ha t co nt ai ne d t he de fen da nt s’ “pa rti sa n” arg um en t an d p ro po se d fa ctua l fi nd in gs ). The no n- arg um en ta ti ve pa rts of P owe rs ’ pr of fere d i ns tru ct io n wer e ad equa te ly
co ve redby the in st ru ct io n tha t the co urt d idgi ve on go odfai th
.

VIII. Su ffi ci en cy

of t he Evi de nc e jury was pre sented with suffic ient evidenc e fr om which it could have c oncluded that Power s rema ined willfully

ignor ant of the f

raudule nt misreprese ntations, just as his s upervisor ha d attempted to do. 90Hil l, Al ci nd or , Bro wn, Fa rm er, Lau de rm il l, Po wers , andVan M ers be rg en

ch al le ng e th e su ffi ci en cy of t he ev id en ce p res en te d a t t ria l. We revi ew th e is su es de no vo , and“ we wil l n otdi sturb agu il ty verd ic t u nl es s, g iv enth e ev id en ce i n t he
reco rd , no tri er o f fac t co ul d h av e fo un d g ui ltbe y on d areas on ab le do ub t.” Un it ed St at es v. Si lv es tri , 40 9 F .3d13 11 , 13 27 (11 thCir . 20 05 ) (quo ta ti on m ark s om it te d) . In re vi ewin g t he su ffi ci en cy of t he ev id en ce, “ we lo okat t he reco rdin th e li gh t m os t fa vo rab le to th e v erd ic t” an d d raw al l re as on ab le in fere nc es an d
res ol ve all qu es ti on s o f cre di bi li ty in i ts fav or . Uni te d S ta te s v . Mart e, 35 6 F .3d 13 36 , 13 44 (11 th Cir . 20 04 ). A. Farm er Farm er co nt en ds th atwe m us t v acat e h is co nv ic ti on s fo r m on ey lau nd eri ng an d h is co nv ic ti onforco ns pi racy, whi ch in cl ud edall eg at io ns of m on ey lau nd eri ng as ov ertact s p erfo rm edin furth eran ce o f th e co ns pi racy. He rel ie s o n Un it ed 2 9 St at es v. Sa nt os , 55 3 U.S. 5 07 , 12 8 S .Ct. 2 02 0 (2 00 8) , inwhi chth e Supr em e Co urt h el d t ha t l au nd eri ng of t he “ rece ip ts ” o f anil le ga l g am bl in g o pe rat io n —as op po se d t o t he “pr of

it s” — d idno t co ns ti tu te m on ey lau nd eri ng . Farm er ar gu es th atSan to s ap pl ie s t o t hi s ca se be cau se th ere was no pro of th atth e “pr oc eed s” al le ge d a ndpro ve n wer e “pr of it s” an d n otsi m

pl y gro ss rece ip ts or e xp en se s o f th e Hill, Alcindor, Br own, L auder mill, Van Mersberg en and Powe rs have adopted 2 9 Fa rmer’ s arg

ument reg ardingthe money laundering c harg es. 91frau du le ntsch em e. The g ov ern m en t ar gu es th atwe sh ou ldrev ie w th is co nt en ti on

on ly for p la in erro r be cau se Farm er fa il edto rai se itpro pe rly in t he di st ric t co urt. Und er an y

st an da rdof r ev ie w, Farm er’s co nt en ti onis for ecl os edby our de ci si on in Uni te d S ta te s v . Jen ni ng s, 5 99 F.3d12 41 (11 th Cir . 20 10 ). In t ha t de ci si on we refu se d t o e xt en d t he rat io na le of S an to s t o c as es in vo lv in g m ai l o r wire frau d due to th e “ li m it edpre ced en ti al va lu e,” i d. at12 52 (qu ot in g Un it ed St at es v. Dem ares t, 5 70 F.3d12 32 , 12 42 (11 th Cir . 20 09 )), o f Ju st ic e St ev en s’ pl ur al it y op in io n i n S an to s, wh ic h we t reat“ as co ntro ll in g i n i ts na rro wes t fo rm .” Id . In l ig htof J en ni ng s, we re ject F arm er’s San to s- ba se d c on te nt io n t ha t we sh ou ldva cat e h is co nv ic ti on s fo r m on ey lau nd eri ng in co nn ect io n wi thm ortg ag e frau d. B. Hil l Hil l co nt en ds th atth e g ov ern m en t d idno t p res en t s uf fic ie ntev id en ce t o su st ai n h is co nv ic ti on s fo r ba nkfrau d (C ou nt s 3 –4 ) an d fa ls e cre di t ap pl ic at io ns (Co un ts 5– 8) in rel at io n t o t he frau d o n C ha rte r Ban k. He al so ch al le ng es th e su ffi ci en cy

of t he ev id en ce s up po rti ng hi s co nv ic ti on s fo r m ai l fr au d (C ou nt s 3 5, 36 , and38 ). 1. Hil l’s Co nv ic ti on s fo r Ban k F rau d andFal se Cred itApp li cat io ns

92To p ro ve bankfrau d u nd er 1 8 U.S.C. § 13 44 , th e g ov ern m en t m us t s ho w th at : (1 ) a s ch em e ex is te d t o o bt ai n m on ey , fun ds , or c red itin th e cu st od y or co nt ro l o f a fed eral ly ins ur edfin an ci al in st itut io n; (2) th e d efen da ntpa rti ci pa te d i n th e sc he m e b y

m ean s o f m at eri al fal se pre te ns es , rep res en ta ti on s, o r pr om is es ; an d (3 ) th e d efen da ntact edkn owi ng ly. Uni te d S ta te s v . W il li am s, 3 90 F.3d13 19 , 13 24 (11 th Cir . 20 04 ). To p ro ve th ata de fen da ntfil eda fal se cred itap pl ic at io n un de r 18 U.S.C. § 1 01 4 t he go ve rn m en t m us t s ho w th at : (1 ) th e d efen da nt kn owi ng ly m ad e a fal se st at em en t o r rep ort; an d (2 ) he di d s o fo r th e p ur po se of in flu en ci ng th e co nduc t o f a fed eral ly-in su redba nkwith re sp ectto anap pl ic at io n, adva nc e, co m

m itm en t, o r lo an . Uni te d S ta te s v . Tho rn , 17 F.3d32 5, 3 27 (11 th Ci r. 19 94 ). The ev id en ce s ho wedth atin ord er t o o bt ai n t wo l in es of c red itfro m Ch art er, Hil l an d h is ass oc ia te s s ub m it te d app li cat io ns in th e n am e o f two Hil lown eden ti ti te s, At la nt a Co nd o a ndSto rag e, In c., an d At la nt a Mi ll en iu m In ve st m en ts , L.L. C. Hil l re pr es en te d t o C ha rte r th atCh ris to ph er Grah am , hi s em pl oyee who pe rfo rm edm ai nt en an ce an d fu rn itur e m ov in g s erv ic es , own eda 25 pe rcen t s ta ke in Atl an taCo nd o (v al ue d a t $ 18 0,0 00 ) an d a ls o $ 20 ,00 0 i n fu rn is hi ng s. Hil l’s o wn fi na nc ia l s ta te m en t i nd ic at edth athe was re cei vi ng an in co m e o f $2 0,0 00 pe r weekfro m Atl an taCo nd o andth athi s o wne rs hi p i nt eres t 93was worth $ 57 0,0 00
. Inreal ity , Grah am ’s nam e was li st edonth e Atl an taCo nd o

ap pl ic at io n i n o rd er t o o bs cu re Hi ll ’s in vo lv em en t fr om di sg ru nt le d re si de nt s. AndAtl an taCo nd o was no t wo rth $7 50 ,00 0, as Hil l h adrep res en te d. Th e co m pa ny hadno acco un ts rece iv ab le , itha d c on du ct edno bu si ne ss , andacco rd in g to Hil l’s t ax returns , itwas v al ue d a t o nl y $9 0,0 00
. The ev id en ce al so sh owe d t ha t Hi ll pre se nt edCh art er wi th a sh areh ol de r ag reem en t b etweenhi m se lf andGrah am th atwas d at edOcot ob er 6 , 20 01 , bu t Grah am tes ti fie d t ha t h e d idno t kno w Hil l i n 2 00 1 a ndhe di d n otm ov e to th e ad dr es s l is te d a s h is res id en ce o n t he ap pl ic at io n u nt il Marc h o f 20 02 . Fin al ly, Hil l re pr es en te d t o C ha rte r th atth e li ne of c red itwou ldbe us edforwork in g cap it al . Ins te ad , Hil l u se d t he m on ey to bu y th in gs for

hi m se lf a ndforhi s daug ht er an d t o p ay

forex pe ns es ass oc ia te d wi th hi s p ers on al res id en ce. The re was als o s uf

fic ie ntev id en ce t o s us ta in Hil l’s co nv ic ti on s fo r ba nk frau d andfal se cred itap pl ic at io ns reg ard in g t he Atl an taMi ll en iu m li ne of c red it (Co un ts 4 an d 6 ). The ev id en ce s ho wedth atHil l ag ai n re pr es en te d t o C ha rte r th at th e fu nd s wo ul d b e u se d fo r worki ng cap it al , bu t h e an d Var ga s, h is co -co ns pi rat or an d i ns id e m anat C ha rte r, kn ew atth e ti m e th atth e lo anwou ldbe us edto fig hta te m po rary restrai ni ng ord er tha t re su lt edfro m li ti ga ti on ov er Hi ll ’s sal e o f so m e co nd om in iu m s (C ou nt s 1 9– 18 7)
. Als o l ik e th e Atl an taCo nd o t ran sa ct io n, Hi ll 94of

fere d asec ur it y

in te res t i n At la nt a Mi ll en iu m ’s ass et s ev enth ou gh th e co m pa ny ha d c on du ct edno bu si ne ss an d h adno acco un ts rece iv ab le . Even if C ha rte r wou ld ha ve ha d a n i nt eres t i n a ny futur e acc ou nt s re cei vabl e, as Hil l n ow ar gu es , th e ev id en ce s ti ll sh owe d t ha t the ap pl ic at io n was frau du le ntbe cau se of Hi ll ’s rep res en ta ti on s t o C ha rte r, whi ch he kn ew to be fal se . The ev id en ce s ho wedth atHil l’s fraudon Ch art er co nt inue d e ve n a fte r Varg as was a sk edto res ig n o nc e h is in vo lv em en t i n s ev eral su sp ic io us tra ns act io ns cam e to li gh t. WhenCh art er d is co ve redth atHil l was co nn ect edto th e Atl an taCo nd o a ndAtl an taMi ll en iu m tra ns act io ns , Hil l m etwith Hu ng erfo rd , a Ch art er Ba nkVice Pres id en t, t o d is cu ss th e p ro sp ect s o f rep aym en t. Inth at
m eet in g, Hi ll reaf

firm edth atth e Atl an taCo nd o l in e o f cre di t was sec ur edby the
acco un ts rece iv ab le , whi ch Hil l kne w di d n otex is t, an d h e furth er re pr es en te d t ha t th e Atl an taMi ll en iu m

li ne of c red itwas s ecu redby a $4 00 ,00 0 n ot e fro m

“ Alci nd orW il li am s,” wh ic h h e ex pe ct edto be pa idintwo week s. Hil l co nc eal ed th e fac t tha t the Alci nd or -Will ia m s Gro up ha d a lre ady fil edforbankrupt cy

an d th atth ere was no real ho pe th atth e n ot e wou ldbe pa idan y ti m e so on , if ev er. The ev id en ce s ho wedth atHil l l at er s en t a f ax to Hun ge rfo rdin di cat in g t ha t th e li ne s o f cre di t wer e al so sec ur edby a pri m ary m ortg ag e o n Lo t 3 3 o f th e Cas cad e subd iv is io n a s wel l as sec on da ry li en s o n 2 8 h om es it es . He con ceal edth e 95factth atLot33 ha d a lre ady be enco nv ey edto th e Alc in do r-Will ia m s Gro up , whi chha d c on tra ct edto bu il d aho us e o n t he lan d (a n o bl ig at io n t ha t was ne ve r pe rfo rm ed ). Hil l al so fai le d t o d is cl os e th ata se co nd ary li enon an y of t he 28 ho m es it es was wo rth le ss be cau se Cen tru m was fo recl os in g o n i ts pri m ary li enth at was va lu edat $ 1.2 m il li on . The go ve rn m en t p ro du ceden ou gh ev id en ce attri al fro m whi ch a reas on ab le fact fin de r co ul d c on cl ud e b ey on d areas on ab le do ub t t ha t m an y m at eri al
m is rep res en ta ti on s Hi ll m ad e to Ch art er Ba nkwere fraudul en t. His in su ffi ci en cy of th e ev id en ce co nt en ti on s ar e al l m eri tl es s.

2. Hi ll ’s Con vi ct io ns forMai l Fr au d Hil l al so co nt en ds th athi s co nv ic ti on s fo r m ai l fr au d andco ns pi racy to co m m itm ai l fr au d (C ou nt s 1 9, 3 5, 3 6, an d 3 8) sh ou ldbe rev ers edbe cau se th e go ve rn m en t fa il edto pro ve th atth e m ai ls were u se d i n fu rth eran ce o f hi s s ch em e to de frau d. “ Mai l fr au d c on si st s o f th e fo ll owi ng ele m en ts : (1 ) anin te nt io na l pa rti ci pa ti on in a sc he m e to de frau d ape rs on of m on ey or p ro pe rty, and(2) th e u se of th e m ai ls in furth eran ce o f th e sc he m e.” Uni te d S ta te s v . Sha rp e, 43 8 F .3d 12 57 , 12 63 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ) (quo ta ti on m ark s o m it te d)
. The on ly m ai li ng s al le ge d b y th e in di ct m en t wer e o f th e fi le -s ta m pe d c op ie s of tra ns fer d eed s an d l ie n d oc um en ts by the co un ty clerk ’s off ic e th atwere m ai le d 96to th e cl os in g a tt orne y s wh o t he n s aw th atth e le nd ers go t co pi es . Hill arg ue s t ha t

th os e m ai li ng s wer e n otdo ne in furth eran ce o f hi s s ch em e to de frau d b ecau se th ey di d n otoc cu r un ti l the sch em e h adalr eady su ccee de d. Th e g ov ern m en t h as co nc ed edth atth e m ai li ng s b y th e cl erk ’s off

ic e were n otsu ffi ci en tl y

ess en ti al to th e fraudul en t s ch em e u nl es s t he y were n eces sa ry

to lu ll th e le nd ers in to be li ev in g th atth e fraudul en t tran sa ct io ns were ac tu al ly leg it im at e. Inord er t o fa ll withi n t he sco pe of 1 8 U.S.C. § 13 41 , a m ai li ng m us t co ns ti tu te pa rt o f th e ex ecu ti on of t he frau d. Un it edSta te s v . Evan s, 4 73 F.3d 11 15 , 11 18 –1 9 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 6) . “ To b e p artof the ex ecu ti on of the frau d, ho wev er, the us e o f th e m ai ls ne edno t b e aness en ti al ele m en t o f th e sc he m e. It i s su ffi ci en t fo r th e m ai li ng to be in ci de ntto aness en ti al pa rt o f th e sc he m e o r a s te p in [th e] plo t.” Sc hm

uc k v . Uni te d S ta te s, 4 89 U.S. 70 5, 7 10 –1 1, 1 09 S.Ct . 14 43 , 14 47 –4 8 (1 98 9) (ci ta ti on s an d quo ta ti on m ark s o m it te d) . There do es co m e a p oi nt atwhi ch a m ai li ng wil l n o l on ge r be co ns id eredpa rt o f th e ex ecu ti onof a frau du le ntsch em e. Afte r a s ch em e h as “reac he d fr ui ti on ” m ai li ng s g en eral ly
can no t h av e b een “ ‘for the pu rp os e o f ex ecu ti ng ’ th e sc he m e,” as 18 U.S.C. § 1 34 1 requi res . Uni te d S ta te s v . Geor ga li s, 6 31 F.2d11 99 , 12 04 (5t h C ir. 1 98 0) ; s ee al so Uni te d S ta te s v . Adk in so n, 1 58 F.3d11 47 , 11 63 (11 th Cir . 19 98 ) (“ W e h av e n ot he si ta te d t o re ve rs e m ai l fr au d c on vi ct io ns wher e th e und erl y in g s ch em e h as 97reac he d frui ti on pri or to th e m ai li ng .”). Bu t the re i s a l ul li ng ex cep ti on to th at ru le
. Und er the lu ll in g e xc ep ti on , m ai li ng s ar e su ffi ci en tl y a pa rt o f th e ex ecu ti on of a frau du le ntsch em e if

th ey are u se d t o l ul l t he sch em e’s vi ct im s i nt o afal se se ns e o f se curit y

th atth ey are n otbe in g d efraud ed , th ereb y all owi ng th e sc he m e to go un de te ct ed . Georg al is , 63 1 F .2dat 1 20 4. An d alu ll in g m ai li ng m ay be

“ in ci de ntto aness en ti al part o f th e sc he m e” ev enaft er the frau d h as be en su cces sf ul ly perp etrat edif t he m ai li ng is cri ti cal to co nc eal th e sc he m e. Fo r ex am pl e, in Sch m

uc k, a u se d c ar d is tri bu to r so ldcars to de al ers at i nf la te d p ric es aft er h e ro ll edba ckth e o do m et ers . 48 9 U.S. at70 7, 1 09 S.Ct . at 1 44 6. Th en , in
or de r to co m

pl et e sa le s t o i nn oc en t b uyers, the de al ers m ai le d t it le ap pl ic at io ns to th e st at e m ot orve hi cl e ag en cy to tra ns fer t it le fro m

th e d eal er t o the bu y ers . Id., 10 9 S .Ct. at14 46 . The Supr em e Co urt uph el d S ch m uc k’s co nv ic ti on for

m ai l frau d b as edon th e m ai li ng of the ti tl e ap pl ic at io ns by the de al ers ev enth ou gh Sch m uc k h adalr eady

su cces sf ul ly swin dl edth e d eal ers by the ti m e th e m ai li ng s were d on e. Id . at 7 15 , 10 9 S .Ct. at14 50 . The Co urt co nc lu de d t ha t a r eas on ab le juro r co ul d h av e in ferr edth atth e co nt in ue d s uc ces s o f Sch m uc k’s fr au du le nt sc he m e was in ex tri cab ly int ertwin edwith h is go odrel at io ns hi ps with t he de frau de d d eal ers , whi ch were i n turn d ep en de nton th e p as sa ge of t it le fro m 98de al er t o b uyer. Id. at71 1– 12 , 10 9 S .Ct. at14 48 –4 9. Th eref or e, ev enth ou gh th e m ai li ng s d idno t o ccu r un ti l af te r Sch m uc k’s o wn d eal s wer e co m pl et edan d h e ha d t he fru it s o f th e fraudin ha nd , th e m ai li ng s fu rth eredhi s s ch em e to de frau d be cau se th ey

were es se nt ia l t o p rev en t t he de al ers fro m di sc ov eri ng th atth ey

ha d be endupe d. Id ., 10 9 S .Ct. at14 48 –4 9. Hil l ar gu es th at , un li ke Sch m uc k, t he m ai li ng s b y

th e cl erk ’s off

ic e in th is
cas e were n otin furth eran ce o f an y sch em e to de frau d b ecau se th ey were n ot ne ces sa ry forhi m to ob ta infun ds fro m

th e le nd ers or t o b uy or s el l t he pro pe rti es . As the go ve rn m en t p oi nt s o ut , ho wev er, Hil l’s s ch em e was on go in g. In ord er t o ke ep itgo in g, t he clo si ng att orne y s h adto rece iv e fi le -s ta m pe d c op ie s o f de ed s an d l ie n d oc um en ts fro m

th e cl erk ’s off

ic e, an d t ha t o ffi ce u se d t he m ai l t o g et th os e d oc um en ts to th e cl os in g a tt orne y s. Th e cl os in g a tt orne y s t he n fo rward ed th e d oc um en ts in th e co m pl et edlo anpa ck ag es to th e le nd ers . Oth erwi se , th e le nd ers wou ldha ve real iz edth atth e st raw b uyers h adno real in te res t i n t he pr op erty , andth e fraudm ach in e wou ldha ve co m e to a gr in di ng ha lt . The m ai li ng s of th e fi le -s ta m

pe d c op ie s o f th e d oc um en ts oi le d t he m ach in ery an d k ep t i t ru nn in g. Bu t fo r th os e d oc um en ts , Hil l wo ul d n otha ve be enab le to av oi d de te ct io n a s l on g a s h e d id , andth ere wo ul d n otha ve be enas m an y frau du le nt lo an s an d a s m

uc h i ll ic itga in
. 99Bec au se th e sc he m e d ep en de d o n t he ob se rv an ce o f no rm al fil in g

pr oc edur es , itwas n ot“ fu ll y co ns umm at ed ” b efo re the m ai li ng s wer e se nt , eve n th ou gh th e lo an s h adalr eady be enpro ces se d. Se e Uni te d S ta te s v . Evan s, 4 73 F.3 d 1 11 5, 1 12 0 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 6) . Whe n, as he re, “ th e sc he m e in cl ud es no t o nl y ob ta in in g t he be ne fitof t he frau d b utals o d el ay in g d et ect io n o f th e fraudby lu ll in g t he vi ct im

aft er the be ne fitha s b een ob ta in ed , th e sc he m e is no t fu ll y co ns umm at ed , anddo es no t re ach fru it io n, u nt il th e lu ll in g p orti onof t he sch em e co nc lu de s.” Id
. Eve n s o, Hi ll arg ue s t ha t h is m ai l fr au d c on vi ct io ns can no t b e b as edon th e lu ll in g t he ory

be cau se itwas n otall eg edin th e in di ct m en t o r ch arg edto th e jury. It i s t ru e th at“ [t]hi s C ou rt c an no t af firm a cri m in al co nv ic ti on ba se d o n ath eo ry no t co nt ai ne d i n t he in di ct m en t, o r no t p res en te d t o the jury. ” Uni te d S ta te s v . Elk in s, 8 85 F.2d77 5, 7 82 (11 th Cir . 19 89 ) (ci ta ti on om it te d) . Howev er, tha t si m pl y m ean s t ha t “ a co urt ca nn otpe rm ita de fen da ntto be tri edon ch arg es th at are n otm ad e in th e in di ct m en t ag ai ns t h im .” Sti ro ne v. Un it edSta te s, 3 61 U.S. 21 2, 2 17 , 80 S.Ct . 27 0, 2 73 (19 60 ); s ee al so Geor ga li s, 6 31 F.2dat 1 20 5 (“ A
va ria nc e b etweenin di ct m en t an d p ro of is fat al on ly whe n i t af

fect s t he ‘ subs ta nt ia l rig ht s’ of the de fen da ntby ins uf fic ie nt ly not ifyin g h im

of t he ch arg es ag ai ns t h im
so th athe m ay

pre pa re a p ro pe r de fen se .”). 100Hil l was no t co nv ic te d o f an y ch arg es th atwere n otco nt ai ne d i n the in di ct m en t, n orwere h is rig ht s v io la te d b ecau se th e in di ct m en t fa il edto no ti fy hi m of th e ch arg es he face d. Itsp eci fic al ly charg edth atHil l co m m it te d m ai l fr au d b y , am on g o th er thi ng s, caus in g t he ti tl e an d l ie n d oc um en ts to be m ai le d i n fu rth eran ce o f a s ch em e to de frau d l en de rs . 3 0 As fo r th e jury no t b ei ng in st ru ct edon th e lu ll in g t he ory , th e Supr em e Co urt ha s uph el d am ai l fr au d c on vi ct io n b as edon th atth eo ry ev enth ou gh th e jury was
no t s pe ci fic al ly ins tru ct edonit . See Un it edSta te s v . Lane , 47 4 U.S. 4 38 , 45 2– 53 , 10 6 S .Ct. 7 25 , 73 4 (1 98 6) . In Lan e, th e Co urt h el d t ha t “ [t]he jury was pro pe rly in st ru ct edth ateachch arg edm ai li ng m us t h av e b een m ad e b ot h ‘forth e p ur po se of The indictment cha

rg ed that: 3 0 [Hil l and his co-c o n spirators] devise[d] a scheme and artifice to defr aud mortg ag e companies by submitt ing and causing to be submitt ed materia lly false qualifying information an d documentation and other fra udulent repr esentations to obtain mortg ag e loans, causing the Postal S ervice and other interstate car riers to be used and interstate wi re communications to be mad e i n fu rthera nce of said scheme and artifice to defr aud, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1341 and 1343 ; and . . . As part of the closi ng proce ss of the transactions specifie d above .
.

. closing attor

n e y s Ch ris top h e r H alc omb and Andre w Wolf submitt ed transfe r deeds and lien documents to the appropriate county cler k proper ty rec ording depar tment with a reque st that stamped-fi led copies of these documents be returne d to him. Pursuant to these instructions, s u c h d o c uments wer e returne d t o t h e re l evant closing attorney by United States Mail. Halcomb and Wolf also mailed a complete closing packag e to the lender by United S tates m ail or commerical interstate car rier. Doc. 702, Third Super sedingIndictment, at ¶¶ 21( a), 23( c). 101ex ecu ti ng th e sc he m e to de frau d’ an d p rio r to th e sc he m e’s co m pl et io n, an d fu rth er tha t m ai li ng s ‘whi ch faci li ta te co nc eal m en t o f th e sc he m e’ are co ve redby th e st atut e.” Id . (cit at io ns an d e m ph as is om it te d) . Thatwas e no ug h i n t he Supr em e Co urt’s v ie w. The jury inth is cas e was als o i ns tru ct edon th e th ree c om po ne nt s t ha t t he Supr em e Co urt i de nt ifi edin Lane as asu ffi ci en t b as is forth e lu ll in g the ory : (1 ) th e m ai li ng m

us t h av e b eendo ne “ fo r th e p ur po se of e xe cu ti ng th e sc he m e to de frau d” ; (2 ) th e m ai li ng m us t h av e o ccu rredbe fo re the sch em e was co m pl et e; an d (3 ) th e st atut e co ve rs a rep res en ta ti on th atco nc eal s a m at eri al fact
. See i d. 3 1

Specifica lly , the jury

in this case wa s charg ed, in re levant par t, as follows: 3 1 The Def

endant ca n be found guilty of [m ail fra ud] only if all of the following fac ts are proved beyond a rea sonable doubt:
. . . That the Def endant used the United States Postal Servic e by mailing or by causing to be mailed

. . . some matter o r thing for the purpose of executing the scheme to defr aud[;] W h at must be proved beyond a rea sonable doubt is that t h e Def endant, with the specific intent to defr aud, knowing ly devised, intended to devise, or participated in, a scheme to defr aud substantially the same as the one alleg ed in the indictment, and that the use of the United States mail was closely related to the scheme beca use the Def

endant either mailed something or cause d it to be mailed in a n attempt to e x ecute or ca rry out the scheme [; ] A statement or repr esentation may also be “fa lse” or “fr audulent” when it constitutes a half truth, or ef fe ct i v ely conce als a materia l fac t, provided it is made with intent to defra ud. (empha sis added). 102Und er the Lane de ci si on Hil l’s co nt en ti on th atth e jury was no t s uf fic ie nt ly in st ru ct edon th e lu ll in g t he ory fai ls
. The rem ai ni ng qu es ti on is whet he r th e g ov ern m en t was requi redto pu t o n ev id en ce tha t i f th e le nd ers ha d n otrece iv edfil e-s ta m pe d d oc um en ts reg ard in g th e lo an s t he y

ha d m ad e an d t he ir s ecu rit y in te res ts , th ey

wou ldha ve be co m e wis e to Hil l’s s ch em e an d qui t d eal in g wi th hi m an d h is ass oc ia te s. If e vi de nc e was requi red , th ere was en ou gh of i t. As we d is cu ss edearl ie r, se e supr a, PartV, Sect io n A, rep res en ta ti ve s o f
se ve ral len de rs — i nc lu di ng a rep res en ta ti ve of Al li an ce M ortg ag e, th e le nd er fo r th e lo anat i ss ue in Co un t 3 5 —tes ti fie d t ha t the ir i ns ti tu ti on s wo ul d n othave ap pr ov edth e lo an s i f th ey ha d kno wn t ha t i nf

orm at io n i n t he ap pl ic at io ns ha d b een fal si fie d. Th ere was a st ip ul at io n t ha t i f th e le nd ers forth e lo an s atis su e in Co un ts 36 an d 3 8 h adkn own th os e ap pl ic at io ns co nt ai ne d fa ls e in fo rm at io n abo utown eroc cupanc y , app rai sa ls , earl ie r sa le s, the so ur ce o f an y do wn p aym en t, the ex is te nc e of qu it cl ai m

de ed s, o r m on ey

pa idto th e b orro wer fo r us e o f hi s o r he r cre di t, tha t kn owl ed ge wou ldha ve affe ct edth ei r de ci si on s. Anun de rwri te r an d a tt orne y fora ti tl e in su ran ce co m

pa ny even in st ru ct edhe r cl os in g a tt orne y s t o c eas e cl os in g o n an y lo an s i nv ol vi ng Hil l o nc e sh e le arn edof the sch em e, an d aba nk ’s un de rwri te r ad de d F arm er, Hil l, an d o ne of t he ir c lo si ng ag en ts to th e b an k’s ex cl us io na ry li st 103aft er an in te rn al au di t unc ov eredsev eral in st an ces of f rau d i n l oa n app li cat io ns . Andon e o f Hil l’s cl os in g a tt orne y s t es ti fie d tha t a l en de r’s rece ip t o f th e cl os in g pa ck ag e, in cl ud in g t he de ed s t ha t h adbe enfil edan d m ai le d b ackfro m th e cl erk ’s of fic e, was a vi ta l p artof the trans act io n. Al l o f th atev id en ce was m or e th an en ou gh to pro ve be y on d areas on ab le do ub t tha t t he m ai li ng s wer e aness en ti al pa rt o f th e o ve ral l s ch em e, th atth ey oc cu rredbe fo re the sch em e h adreac he d fru it io n, an d t ha t the y

were n eces sa ry

to co nc eal th e fraudfro m th e le nd ers an d t o ke ep th e sc he m e g oi ng . Hill ’s con vi ct io ns form ai l fr au d a ndco ns pi racy to co m m itm ai l fr au d (C ou nt s 1 9, 3 5– 36 , and38 ) are supp orte d b y th e ev id en ce. C. Alci nd or Alci nd orco nt en ds th atth ere was in su ffi ci en t ev id en ce t o p ro ve th athe was gu il ty of th e co ns pi racy all eg edin Co un t 1 9, t he m ai l an d wi re fraudch arg es al le ge d i n C ou nt s 3 8 a nd46 –4 7, an d t he m on ey lau nd eri ng ch arg es all eg edin
co un ts 85 –9 0, 9 4, an d 1 79 –1 80 . All o f th os e ch arg es ag ai ns t Al ci nd orst em fro m hi s i nv ol ve m en t i n t ran sa ct io ns with s tra w buy ers Ann et te Sp ear, Ch eryl Denn y , an d C ortn ey

Jac ks on . Alci nd orass ert s t ha t t he go ve rn m en t d idno t p ro du ce an y ev id en ce i m

pl ic at in g h im

pe rs on al ly in an y

frau d o r m on ey

lau nd eri ng with
res pe ctto tra ns act io ns in vo lv in g t ho se th ree s tra w bu y ers .

104Alci nd orco nc ed es th athe was p artof t he Alci nd or -Will iam s Gro up , th at

two of the th ree f

rau du le ntsal es us edto fun d t he pro m is so ry no te ba ck in g t he $4 00 ,00 0 l oa n fr om

Est at es Atl an ta in vo lv edth e Alc in do r-Will ia m s Gro up as se ll er, an d t ha t fu nd s fr om each of t he th ree t ran sa ct io ns were tran sf erre d t o acco un ts ass oc ia te d wi th hi s g ro up . Buthe ass ert s t ha t t he on ly evi de nc e th at in vo lv edhi m

pe rs on al ly w as of awire tra ns fer t o h is cred itun io n a cco un t as pa rt of th e Ann ette Sp ear t ran sa ct io n, an d h e arg ue s t ha t s in gl e co nn ect io n was in su ffi ci en t t o s us ta in hi s co nv ic ti on s o n any of th e co un ts in vo lv in g S pe ar, Den ny, andJac ks on as s tra w bu y ers . Bu t Al ci nd or ’s cha ll en ge d c on vi ct io ns are al so supp orte d b y th e ev id en ce un de rlyin g h is co nv ic ti on s s te m m in g fr om

th e fraudul en t Ce ntrum

lo an . Alci nd or fal se ly repre se nt edto Cen tru m th atth e $ 40 0,0 00 equi ty requ ire m en t wo ul d b e pa idby the Alci nd or -Will iam s Gro up . He th ensi gn edanun di sc lo se d $ 40 0,0 00
no te th atwas t o b e fu nd edin part b y th e fraudul en t s al e o f th ree p ro pe rti es in th e Cas cad e subd iv is io n t o An ne tt e Sp ear, Ch eryl Denn y , andCo rtn ey Jac ks on . Each of th os e tr an sa ct io ns in vo lv edin fla ti ng th e p ur ch as e p ric e, fal si fy in g t he qu al ifi cat io ns of t he st raw b uyers i n o rd er t o o bt ai n b et te r fi na nc in g, an d
m is rep res en ti ng th e so ur ce o f th e d own pa y m en t as havi ng co m e fro m th e st raw bo rro wer. 105The go ve rn m en t p ro du cedev id en ce attri al th atall th ree t ran sa ct io ns

in vo lv edfrau du le ntrep res en ta ti on s t ha t t he do wn p aym en t ca m e fro m th e bo rro wer an d e vi de nc e co nn ect in g Al ci nd orto each of t ho se fal se rep res en ta ti on s. Inth e Sp ear t ran sa ct io n, t he frau du le ntm is rep res en ta ti on in vo lv edtwo alt ered ch eck s t ha t wer e ei th er p ay ab le to , or e nd or se d a ndde po si te d b y , Alci nd or . In the
se co ndtra ns act io n, Al ci nd orrecrui te d Den ny, his co us in , to serve as t he st raw bu y er, an d a no th er al te redch eckwas u se d t o fa ls ify the so ur ce o f th e d own pa ym en t. The fin al trans act io n was in th e n am e o f Co rtn ey Jac ks on , andit , to o, in vo lv eda frau du le ntm is rep res en ta ti on th atcas h c am e fro m th e b orro wer as well
as a de po si t o f ov er $ 15 0,0 00 in pro ceed s i nt o a n a cco un t o wne d b y Bri st ol Hom es , a bu il di ng en ti ty tha t b el on ge d t o t he Alci nd or -Will iam s Gro up . Alci nd orm ak es m

uc h o f hi s al ib i t ha t h e was in St. Lu ci a atth e ti m e o f th e Den ny tran sa ct io n. Th at , ho wev er, i s o nl y on e o f th e tr an sa ct io ns , andev enif th ere wer e n o e vi de nc e to di rect ly con ne ctAlci nd orto any of the straw tra ns act io ns , th ere i s p le nt y co nn ect in g h im

to th e o ve ral l co ns pi racy. He is th eref or e li ab le un de r Pi nk ert on forth e act s o f hi s co -co ns pi rat or s d on e in fu rth eran ce o f th e co ns pi racy even if h e d idno t p ers on al ly tak e p artinth e tra ns act io ns . Pin ke rto n v . Uni te d S ta te s, 3 28 U.S. 64 0, 6 46 –4 7, 6 6 S .Ct. 1 18 0,

10611 83 –8 4 (1 94 6) . There was e no ug h e vi de nc e to pro ve hi m gu il ty on a ll of t he
co un ts on whi ch he was c on vi ct ed
. D. Brown Bro wn ch al le ng es th e su ffi ci en cy of t he ev id en ce s up po rti ng he r co nv ic ti on s fo r co ns pi racy (Cou nt19 ) an d fo r wire frau d (C ou nt s 4 1 a nd43 ). To pr ov e wir e fraudun de r 18 U.S.C. § 1 34 3, “ itis en ou gh to pro ve th atth e d efen da nt kn owi ng ly andvo lu nt ari ly agree d t o p art ic ip at e in a sc he m e to de frau d a ndth at th e u se of t he in te rs ta te wire s i n fu rth eran ce o f th e sc he m e was reas on ab ly fo res eeab le .” Uni te d S ta te s v . Hass on , 33 3 F .3d12 64 , 12 70 (11 th Cir . 20 03 ). Bro wn co nt en ds th atth ere was no ev id en ce tha t s he in te nd edto co m m it frau d i n c on ne ct io n wi th th e in fla te d app rai sa ls sh e p rep aredforth e p ro pe rti es th at were t he subjec t o f th e wir e fraudco un ts . Her in su ffi ci en cy of t he ev id en ce arg um en t h as two co m

po ne nt s. Fi rs t, s he em

ph as iz es th atno de fen da nttes ti fie d th atsh e was pre se ntwhen th e fraudwas b ei ng di sc us se d o r th atsh e was ev er as ke d t o fr au du le nt ly infl at e h er ap pr ai sa ls . Seco nd , sh e st res se s tha t s he was a se cret ary an d n ov ic e ap pr ai se r who was l earn in g o n t he job , sh e was in ex pe rie nc ed , sh e d idsl op py workan d re li edonap pr ai sa ls do ne by oth ers , and sh e was anap pr en ti ce t o a ndwas s up erv is edby W il so n, h er em pl oyer, andth e go ve rn m en t h as ne ve r co nt en de d t ha t h e was a parti ci pa ntin th e fraud
. 107The jury co ul d, as itdi d, re as on ab ly con cl ud e th atBro wn kne w abo utth e

co ns pi racy andpa rti ci pa te d i n i t. Un de r he r pr op erty ap pr ai sa ls , as t he di st ric t co urt p utit , th e v al ue of t he pro pe rty inv ol ve d i n t he sch em e “ as tro no m ic al ly in crea se d” alm os t o ve rn ig ht . The rec or d i nc lu de s s ev eral ex am pl es of B ro wn’s in fla te d app rai sa ls , whi ch were es se nt ia l t o t he sch em e. Fo r ex am pl e, Hil l pu rch as eda pr op erty

on Hun tc li ff Trac e fo r $1 ,10 0,0 00 , andBro wn ap pr ai se d t he
sa m e p ro pe rty twice on ly a m on th lat er, o nc e at$2 ,00 0,0 00 an d t he n a ga in at $2 ,30 0,0 00
. The re was no ev id en ce o f an yth in g t ha t wo ul d h av e cau se d t he va lu e to skyro ck etm or e th an10 0 p erce ntin a m on th . Ano th er ex am pl e is a co nd om in iu m

un itin th e Deere Loft s t ha t Hi ll bo ug htfor$1 83 ,00 0, an d B ro wn ap pr ai se d i t a m ere t wo d ay s l at er fo r $3 60 ,00 0, o m it ti ng fro m th e ap pr ai sa l re po rt
an y m en ti on of t he rece ntsal e to Hil l. Ag ai n, t he re was no ev id en ce o f an y reas on fo r th e su dd enjum

p i n t he “ va lu e” o f th e p ro pe rty oth er tha n the factth atitwas ne ces sa ry to th e fu nc ti on in g o f th e co ns pi racy. The jury co ul d h av e in ferr edfro m all of t hi s an d o th er ci rcu m st an ti al
ev id en ce tha t Br own was a ware o f th e frau d a ndkn owi ng ly part ic ip at edin it be cau se any on e wou ldkn ow t ha t t he pro pe rti es sh e ap pr ai se d h adno t d oubl edin
va lu e wit hi n s uc h s ho rt p eri od s o f ti m e wit h n o l eg it im at e ex pl an at io n. A jury is

108no t re qu ire d t o p utasi de it s co m m on sen se or t o a ss um e th atde fen da nt s h av e no ne . The ot he r pa rt o f Bro wn’s i ns uf fic ie nc y arg um en t, tha t s he was wo rk in g un de r th e supe rv is io n o f W il so n wh o was no t ch arg ed , is equa ll y un av ai li ng . The
co re o f th atarg um en t i s t he ass um pt io n t ha t Wils on was n otch arg edbe cau se he
was no t g ui lt y , andif h e was no t g ui lt y , th enBro wn was n’t ei th er. W e rejectth is arg um en t wh ic h i ns is ts on in no cen ce as a m at te r of law b y pro xy. W e d o n ot kn ow h ow m

uc h Wil so n kne w, whathe di d, o r why he was no t ch arg ed . It m ay ha ve be enbe cau se th ere was les s ev id en ce o f W il so n’s g ui lt , or b ecau se he
co op erat edin so m e as pe ctof t he in ve st ig at io n, o r si m pl y be cau se of am is ta ke or ov ers ig ht . W e d o n otm ean to im pl y th atW il so n was gu il ty of wro ng do in g, b ut hi s g ui ltor i nn oc en ce d oe s n otm at te r fo r pu rp os es of B ro wn’s i ns uf fic ie nc y arg um en t. Eve n i f we as su m e th atW il so n i s ev ery bi t as gu il ty or in no cen t as Bro wn, th e g ov ern m en t’s d eci si onno t t o p ro se cu te hi m do es no t en ti tl e h er t o ajud gm en t of acqui tt al . Ju stas a n i nc on si st en t jury ve rd ic t, s ta nd in g a lo ne , is no t a b as is for
se tt in g a si de a co nv ic ti on , Uni te d S ta te s v . Powe ll , 46 9 U.S. 5 7, 6 8– 69 , 10 5 S .Ct. 47 1, 4 79 (19 84 ), Uni te d S ta te s v . Mit ch el l, 1 46 F.3d13 38 , 13 44 –4 5 (1 1t h C ir. 19 98 ), ne it he r is a pr os ecu to r’s in co ns is te ntch arg in g d et erm in at io n, s ee 109Bo rd en ki rch er v . Hay es , 43 4 U.S. 3 57 , 36 4, 9 8 S .Ct. 6 63 , 66 8 (1 97 8) (“ Inou r

syste m , so lo ng as t he pro se cu to r ha s p ro babl e cau se to be li ev e th atth e acc us ed
co m m it te d a n o ffen se de fin edby statut e, th e d eci si on whet he r orno t t o p ro se cu te , an d wh atch arg e to fil e o r br in g b efo re a g ran d jury , gen eral ly rest s en ti rel y in hi s di sc ret io n.” ), Newm anv. Un it edSta te s, 3 82 F.2d47 9, 4 80 (D.C. Cir . 19 67 ) (“ Few
subjec ts are l es s ad ap te d t o ju di ci al rev ie w th anth e ex erci se by the Exec ut iv e o f hi s d is cret io n i n d eci di ng when an d wh ethe r to in st itut e cri m in al pro ceed in gs , or wha t p reci se ch arg e sh al l b e m ad e, orwhet he r to di sm is s a p ro ceed in g o nc e br ou gh t.”) . The l aw do es no t co nt ai n ape rfec t i nju st ic e p rin ci pl e p ro vi di ng th atif
so m e g ui lt y

pa rti es esc ap e p un is hm en t, al l m us t b e p erm it te d t o d o s o. In st ead , th e la w acco m

m od at es im

pe rfec ti onan d i s h om e to th e id ea tha t i t i s b et te r to ha ve so m e jus ti ce tha n n on e. Bro wn’s ar gu m en ts of l im it edin vo lv em en t s ou ndm or e in sen te nc in g t ha n in co nv ic ti on , andun do ub te dl y ex pl ai n wh y

sh e rec ei ve d t he li gh te stsen te nc e o f
an y of t he co nv ic te d c o- co ns pi rat or s. E. Laud erm il l Fo r he r ro le in recrui ti ng st raw b uyers t o p art ic ip at e in Hil l’s s ch em e, Lau de rm il l was co nv ic te d o f th e o ve ral l co ns pi racy (Cou nt19 ), of fil in g afal se cred itap pl ic at io n (C ou nt s 3 1, 1 82 ), of wire frau d (C ou nt41 ), an d o f m on ey 110laun de rin g (C ou nt s 7 5– 76 , 80 , 12 9, 1 33 –3 5, 1 37 –3 9, 1 42 , 14 7– 49 , 15 9, 1 64 , 17 0)

Sh e ch al le ng es th e su ffi ci en cy of t he ev id en ce s up po rti ng all of t ho se co nv ic ti on s on th e b as is of wh atsh e cal ls he r “ li m it edin vo lv em en t.” Lau de rm il l d oe s n ot de ny the ex is te nc e o f th e co ns pi racy, or th e ex is te nc e o f frau d, o r th e fac t tha t s he
rece iv edpro ceed s fo r rec ru it in g t he st raw b orro wers . Ins te ad , sh e arg ue s tha t s he
was un aware of any fraud , andsh e p oi nt s t o the factth atsh e rec ru it edhe r fri en ds
an d fa m il y

as e vi de nc e o f he r un aware ne ss . Lau de rm il l’s d efen se th atsh e act edin go odfai th an d wi th ou t an y kn owl ed ge of t he frau d o r co ns pi racy is b el ie d b y th e ev id en ce, wh ic h s ho wedth at sh e was aware t ha t l en de rs were b ei ng de cei ve d a s t o t he qu al ifi cat io ns of bo rro wers an d t he so ur ce o f do wn p aym en ts . In o ne tra ns act io n, Lau de rm il l ev en wen t s o fa r as to ad d o ne of t he st raw b uyers t o h er o wn b an k a cco un t wh enhe fai le d t o qua li fy

fora lo anbe cau se he lac ke d t he fun ds fora do wn p aym en t. With he r he lp in th atreg ard , th e st raw b uyer was abl e to subm ita ve rif ic at io n o f de po si t to th e le nd er tha t m ad e itap pe ar as th ou gh he ha d s uf fic ie ntfun ds when he actua ll y di d n ot , andinth atway

he was abl e to ge t t he lo an . The jury al so co ul d h av e co nc lu de d t ha t Lau de rm il l kno win gl y pa rti ci pa te d in th e fraudan d t he co ns pi racy bas edon he r as su ran ces to st raw b uyers. Th e ev id en ce s ho wedth atsh e kne w th atth e st raw b uyers wer e n otsupp lying th ei r 111do wn p aym en ts , as t he y ha d re pr es en te d t o the len de rs ; the re was tes ti m on y th at sh e h adto ldso m e o f th em th atth ey di d n otne edto ha ve m on ey fora do wn pa ym en t. Lau de rm il l al so rem in de d o ne st raw b orro wer tha t t he len de rs were un aware of t he ag reem en ts be twee n Hi ll an d the st raw b uyers t ha t Hi ll wou ld
m ak e th e m ortg ag e p aym en ts an d c om pe ns at e th e “ in ve st or s” an d “ recrui te rs .” Tha t Lau de rm il l u se d a t l eas t s om e o f he r fam il y an d fr ie nd s as st raw bo rro wers do es no t en ti tl e h er t o e sc ap e th e co ns eque nc es of h er co nduc t. If i t d id , ev eryone in a frau d s ch em e co ul d a vo idpu ni sh m en t b y th atsi m pl e ex pe di en t o f vi ct im iz in g t ho se who tru st edth em th e m os t. The jury was free to in fer fr om th e factth atLaud erm il l d idrecrui t h er fri en ds an d fa m il y th atsh e was no t v ery lo y al to th em , or t ha t s he lethe r gr eedun rav el what ev er t ie s s he ha d t o t he m , or t ha t s he si m pl y tri edno t t o t hi nkab ou t i t. The jury was no t re qu ire d t o i nf er fro m th e fac t th atsh e in vo lv edhe r fri en ds an d fa m il y th atLaud erm il l d idno t kno w whatot he r ev id en ce s ho wedsh e kne w. F. VanMers be rg en VanMers be rg enwas fo un d g ui lt y of c on sp ira cy

(Co un t 1 9) , of fi li ng fal se cred itap pl ic at io ns (Co un ts 23 –2 4) , andof m on ey lau nd eri ng (Co un ts 53 –5 6, 9 9, 10 3, 1 08 , 11 0, 1 13 , 11 7) , andhe co nt en ds th atth ere was in su ffi ci en t ev id en ce t o supp ort an y

of h is co nv ic ti on s. Ess en ti al ly, VanMers be rg enarg ue s t ha t t he 112ev id en ce was in su ffi ci en t b ecau se he was a n u nwi tt in g p art ic ip an t wh o was cau gh t

up in Hil l’s s warm

of c on sp ira to rs . Alth ou gh he serve d a s a s tra w bo rro wer fo r th ree t ran sa ct io ns an d wo rk edas Hi ll ’s em pl oyee an d ru nn er, VanMers be rg en in si st s t ha t h e la ck edany kn owl ed ge of t he sch em e to de frau d. He cl ai m s t ha t h e was si m pl y fol lo win g o rd ers an d t ha t h e rel ie d o n t he st at em en ts of a n a tt orne y at on e o f th e cl os in gs th atth e tr an sa ct io ns were l eg al
. The go ve rn m en t p ro du cedev id en ce attri al th atin hi s capa ci ty as a s tra w bo rro wer VanMers be rg enfil edfal is ifi edlo anap pl ic at io ns , he l ie d i n o ccupa nc y st at em en ts , andhe subm it te d fr au du le ntHUD-1 s et tl em en t s ta te m en ts to len de rs . As Hi ll ’s em

pl oyee, Van M ers be rg ende li ve redch eck s t o t he clo si ng att orne y s fo r th e d own pa ym en ts th atwere fro m Hil l o r on e o f Hil l’s as so ci at es bu t wer e rep res en te d o n t he HUD-1 s et tl em en t s ta te m en ts to ha ve co m e fro m th e straw bu y ers . He per so na ll y he lp edtwo ot he r st raw b uyers qua li fy forlo an s b y

si gn in g a fraudul en t co m

pe ns at io n c he ckin on e cas e an d afal si fie d e m pl oym en t ve rif ic at io n i n t he ot he r. Desp it e h is in si st en ce tha t h e act edon ly in g oo d fa it h, th ere was pl en ty of ev id en ce fr om whi cha reas on ab le jury co ul d h av e fo un d Van Mer sb erg engu il ty bey on d areas on ab le do ub t o f eac h c ha rg e. As fo r VanMers be rg en ’s con te nt io n t ha t h e was si m pl y fol lo win g Hi ll ’s
or de rs , th atis no de fen se . See O’Rou rk e v . Hay es , 37 8 F .3d12 01 , 12 10 n.5 (11 th 113Ci r. 20 04 ) (“ [S]in ce Worl d War II, th e ‘j us t fo ll owi ng ord ers ’ de fen se ha s n ot

oc cupi eda res pe ct edpo si ti onin ou r juri sp ru de nc e.”); Uni te d S ta te s v . Bran do n, 17 F.3d40 9, 4 38 (1s t Ci r. 19 94 ) (“ Thi s ‘justfol lo win g o rd ers ’ de fen se can no t st an d i n t he face of t he ev id en ce s ho win g t ha t Lan dm ankn ew do wn p aym en ts were b ei ng fal si fie d, t ha t h e ag reedto saf eg ua rdRei sc h’s d own pa ym en t fu nd s, an d t ha t h e p ers on al ly fals ifi edtwo do wn p aym en ts by retu rn in g t he fun ds to Rei sc h.” ). And , forreas on s we h av e al read y ex pl ai ne d, h is co nt en ti on th at be cau se othe r st raw b orro wers were n otpro se cu te d h e h im se lf m us t n otbe gu il ty fai ls as we ll
. IX. Alci nd or ’s Doubl e Je op ardy Cla im At the en d o f th e g ov ern m en t’s ca se inch ie f, th e d is tri ctco urt h eard arg um en ts on all of t he twel ve de fen da nt s’ Rul e 2 9 m ot io ns forjud gm en ts of acqui tt al . They were t ak enup inalp habe ti cal ord er, b eg in ni ng with Al ci nd or ’s. The co urt o ral ly gran te d Al ci nd or ’s m ot io n fo r acqui tt al as t o C ou nt s 3 8 and94 , ag reei ng with h im

th atth e ev id en ce d idno t s ho w th athe was p ers on al ly inv ol ve d in th os e fraudul en t tran sa ct io ns , alt ho ug h i t d idsh ow tha t co m pa ni es he an d Grah am co nt ro ll edwere. The co urt t he n t oo k up t he m ot io ns forjud gm en t o f acqui tt al of t he ot he r de fen da nt s.

114Nin ety -th ree p ag es of tran sc rip t (a nda lu nc h b reak ) la te r, th e co urt h ad

he ardarg um en t o n a ll th e m ot io ns for jud gm en t o f acqui tt al bu t h adno t ad jou rn ed th e h eari ng . Befo re the co urt d idso , th e g ov ern m en t as ke d t he co urt t o re co ns id er it s ru li ng earl ie r in th e h eari ng grant in g Al ci nd or ’s m ot io n fo r acqui tt al onCo un ts 38 an d 9 4. Th e g ov ern m en t ar gu edth atun de r Pi nk ert on v. Un it edSta te s, 3 28 U.S. 64 0, 6 46 –4 7, 6 6 S .Ct. 1 18 0, 1 18 3– 84 (19 46 ), a d efen dantis cri m in al ly liab le fo r th e act s o f co -co ns pi rat or s i n fu rth eran ce o f th e co ns pi racy, even if t he de fen da ntdi d n otpe rs on al ly tak e p artin th os e act io ns . The g ov ern m en t al so po in te d o utth atacqui tt in g Al ci nd orwou ldbe in co ns is te ntwith t he rul in gs th atth e co urt h adm ad e la te r in th e h eari ng de nyin g o n P in ke rto n g ro un ds so m e o th er de fen da nt s’ m ot io ns forjud gm en t o f acqui tt al . The co urt re pl ie d, “ I th in k I m ad e a m is ta ke ab ou t tha t b utI’m no t s ur e I can fix itno w,” an d a dd ed , “ If I h av e th e po wer t o re co ns id er the rul in g I’ll reco ns id er i t.” Co nv in cedth atitdi d h av e po wer t o d o s o, ei gh t l in es of t ran sc rip t l at er the co urt re ve rs edit s ea rli er ru li ng on Alci nd or ’s m ot io n. Itdi d s o b efo re the he ari ng on th e m ot io ns forjud gm en t o f acqui tt al ha d e nd edan d b efo re i ts earl ie r ru li ng in Alci nd or ’s fav orha d b een reduc edto writ in g. Al ci nd or ob jecte d o n d oubl e jeop ardy gro un ds to th e ch an ge of rul in g.

115Bo th Alci nd oran d t he go ve rn m en t ag ree t ha t t hi s i ss ue is co nt ro ll edby

Sm ith v . Mas sa ch us et ts , 54 3 U.S. 4 62 , 12 5 S .Ct. 1 12 9 (2 00 5) . In tha t ca se th e Supr em e Co urt h el d t ha t the Doubl e Je op ardy Claus e d idno t p erm ita jud ge to reco ns id er an d re ve rs e h er m id tri al jud gm en t o f acqui tt al on a ch arg e aft er the de fen da ntha d re st edhi s ca se bu t b efo re cl os in g arg um en ts . Id. at47 3, 1 25 S.Ct
. at11 37 . The jud ge ha d g ran te d S m it h’s m ot io n fo r a jud gm en t o f acqui tt al on on e co un t b as edonin su ffi ci en cy of t he ev id en ce, h adm ad e a h an dwr it te n n ot at io n o n th e m ot io n t ha t i t was gra nt ed , andth enth e ru li ng was e nt eredon th e fo rm al do ck et . Id. at46 5, 1 25 S.Ct . at 1 13 2– 33 . The tria l p ro ceed edan d S m it h’s co
de fen da ntin tro du cedev id en ce. Id ., 12 5 S .Ct. at11 33 . Sm it h andhi s co de fen da ntres te d the ir c as es on th e rem ai ni ng ch arg es . Then , justbe fo re cl os in g arg um en ts th e p ro se cu to r co nv in cedth e tr ia l ju dg e th athe r acqui tt al de ci si on was co nt rary to co nt ro ll in g p rece de nt , sh e rev ers edhe rs el f, an d t ha t co un t was subm it te d t o t he jury al on g wi th th e o th er two. Id . at 4 66 –6 6, 1 25 S.Ct . at 1 13 3. Sm ith was co nv ic te d o n a ll th ree c ou nt s, i nc lu di ng th e o ne th atwas re in st at edby th e tr ia l co urt. The Supr em e Co urt re ve rs ed , con cl ud in g t ha t a d efen da ntco ul d n otbe
subjec te d t o fu rth er fa ctfin di ng pro ceed in gs ab ou t g ui ltor i nn oc en ce af te r a fi na l jud gm en t o f acqui tt al was e nt ered . “ [A]fter a fa ci al ly unqua li fie d m id tri al 116di sm is sa l o f on e co un t, [i f] the tri al ha s p ro ceed edto th e d efen da nt ’s in tro du ct io n

of ev id en ce, the acqui tt al m us t b e tr eat edas f

in al , un le ss th e av ai labi li ty of
reco ns id erat io n h as be enpl ai nl y est ab li sh edby pre-e xi st in g ru le or c as e au th or it y ex pr es sl y ap pl ic ab le to m id tri al rul in gs on th e su ffi ci en cy of t he ev id en ce.” Id . at 47 3, 1 25 S.Ct . at 1 13 7. The fir stqu es ti on , acco rd in g t o S m ith, i s wh ethe r th e tr ia l ju dg e’s in it ia l
ru li ng on Alci nd or ’s Rul e 2 9 m ot io n was a jud gm en t o f acqui tt al . Id. at46 7, 1 25 S.Ct . at 1 13 4. Itwas. Fo r do ub le jeop ardy pu rp os es a ru li ng is a jud gm en t o f acqui tt al reg ard le ss of i ts form if i t “ actua ll y

rep res en ts a res ol ut io n, co rrec t o r no t, of so m e o r al l o f th e fac tu al ele m en ts of t he off en se ch arg ed .” Uni te d S ta te s v . Marti n Li ne n S up pl y

Co ., 43 0 U.S. 5 64 , 57 1, 9 7 S .Ct. 1 34 9, 1 35 5 (1 97 7) . In
or al ly gran ti ng Alci nd or ’s Rul e 2 9 m ot io n, t he di st ric t co urt “ ev al ua te d t he Gov ern m en t’s ev id en ce an d d et erm in edth atitwas l eg al ly ins uf fic ie ntto su st ai n a co nv ic ti on ,” se e id . at 5 72 , 97 S.Ct . at 1 35 5, b ecau se Alci nd orwas n otpe rs on al ly in vo lv edinth e tr an sa ct io ns ch arg edin Co un ts 38 an d 9 4. Th atde te rm in at io n m ay ha ve be enerro ne ou s, b utwe wil l as su m e fo r th e sa ke of d is cu ss io n tha t i t was a jud gm en t o f acqui tt al
. The rem ai ni ng qu es ti on is whet he r th atjud gm en t o f acqui tt al was fi na l an d th eref or e n otsubjec t t o re co ns id erat io n. Un de r Sm ith o nc e anacqui tt al be co m es 117fin al itm ay

no t b e rec on si de redon ap pe al or o th erwi se . Sm it h, 5 43 U.S. at 4 69 3 2 n.4 , 12 5 S .Ct. at11 35 n.4 (ci ti ng Sm al is v. Pe nn sylva ni a, 47 6 U.S. 1 40 , 10 6 S .Ct. 17 45 (19 86 ) an d J us ti ces of B os . Mu n. Co urt v . Ly do n, 4 66 U.S. 29 4, 1 04 S.Ct
. 18 05 (19 84 )). Alt ho ug h t he Supr em e Co urt i n S m ith d idno t an no un ce a g en eral ly ap pl ic ab le rul e ab ou t wh enanacqui tt al be co m es fin al for th es e p ur po se s, i t d id in di cat e th atth e p oi ntof f in al it y is pa ss edwhen ch an gi ng th e ru li ng wou ldrequi re th e acc us edto st an d t ria l a s eco ndti m e fo r th e sa m e o ffen se . Id. at47 3 n .7, 1 25 S.Ct . at 1 13 7 n .7. An d we kno w, of co ur se , fro m Sm it h i ts el f th aton ce a t ria l h as m ov edon fro m

th e jud gm en t o f acqui tt al to th e p res en ta ti on of e vi de nc e in furth er factfin di ng pro ceed in gs , itis to o l at e fo r a co urt t o t ak e b ackth atjud gm en t. The Supr em e Co urt, h owe ve r, in di cat edin Sm it h t ha t a ju dg m en t o f acqui tt al is no t fi na l as so on as i t i s s po ke n o r writ te n. Re sp on di ng to co nc ern s th ata jud ge m ig htne ve r be ab le to co rrec t an erro ne ou s ju dg m en t o f acqui tt al , th e Co urt ex pl ai ne d t ha t “ [d ]oub le -jeo pa rdy pri nc ip le s h av e n ev er b een th ou gh t t o b ar th e imm ed ia te rep ai r of

a ge nu in e err orin th e an no un cem en t o f anacqui tt al , eve n on e ren de redby a j ury .” Sm it h, 5 43 U.S. at 4 74 , 12 5 S .Ct. at11 38 . “ Mo reo ve r, a pr os ecu to r can see k t o p ers ua de th e co urt t o c orrectit s l eg al erro r be fo re i t ru le s, orat l eas t b efo re the pro ceed in gs m ov e fo rward .” Id ., 12 5 S .Ct. at11 38 (em ph as is The g overnme nt does not contend that the e x ception Smith left open for pla inly 3 2 established pre -existi ngrule or c ase a uthority , Smit h, 543 U.S. at 473, 125 S.Ct . at 1137, applies in this case. 118ad de d) . Tho se las t s ev enword s ar e im po rta nt , andth ei r m ean in g i s i ll us tra te d b y wha t the pro se cu to r di d a ndfai le d t o d o i n t he Sm it h c as e. The pro se cu to r inth atcas e d idno t co nv in ce the jud ge to alt er o r am en d h er ru li ng be fo re the pro ceed in gs m ov edon to th e n ex t s ta ge . Ins te ad , th e p ro se cu to r res te d the Co m

m on weal th ’s cas e, Sm ith’s co -d efen dantpu t o n awitne ss , and Sm ith a ndth e co -d efen da ntres te d. On ly the n, an d ju stbe fo re cl os in g a rg um en ts were t o b eg in , di d t he pro se cu to r pe rs ua de th e co urt t o t ak e b ackit s ju dg m en t o f acqui tt al . As th e Supr em e Co urt ex pl ai ne d, “ [h ]ad [the pro se cu to r] sou gh t a s ho rt co nt in ua nc e atth e ti m e o f th e acqui tt al m ot io n, the m at te r co ul d h av e b een res ol ve d s at is fact or il y

be fo re p et it io ne r wen t fo rwardwith h is cas e.” Sm it h, 5 43 U.S. at 4 75 , 12 5 S .Ct. at11 38 (em ph as is ad de d)
. Inth is cas e, by con tra st , th e m at te r was “ res ol ve d s at is fact or il y be fo re [Alc in do r] went f

orwardwith h is cas e.” See id ., 12 5 S .Ct. at11 38 . Andth at
m ak es all th e d iff

eren ce. Not hi ng was d on e, or co ul d h av e b een do ne , inrel ia nc e on th e acqui tt al rul in g b etweenth e ti m e th atrul in g was an no un cedan d t he ti m e it
was res ci nd ed . All t ha t h ap pe ne d i n t he in te rv al (ot he r th ana lu nc h b reak ) was th atth e co urt co nt in ue d t o h ear a ndde ci de m ot io ns forjud gm en t o f acqui tt al fro m th e o th er d efen da nt s. No on e p uton an y ev id en ce. No o ne op en edor c lo se d h is
cas e. No o ne di d a nyth in g i n fr on t o f th e jury. The pro ceed in gs di d n otm ov e 119fo rwardun ti l af te r th e h eari ng on all of t he m ot io ns to acqui t h adco nc lu de d, an d by tha t t im e th e jud gm en t ac qu it ti ng Alci nd oron th e two co un ts ha d a lre ady be en res ci nd ed
. Sm it h h ad“ no reas on to do ub t t he fin al it y of t he st at e co urt’s ru li ng ,” Sm it h, 54 3 U.S. at47 0, 1 25 S.Ct . at 1 13 5, an d e ve ry reas on to be li ev e th athi s ac qu it ta l
on on e o f th e ch arg es was fi na l af te r th e p ro se cu to r ha d re st ed , th e co -d efen da nt ha d p uton ev id en ce, an d t he n b ot h s he an d S m it h h adres te d t he ir c as es . By
co nt ras t, Al ci nd or

ha d n o re as on to be li ev e th athi s ac qu it ta l was fin al be fo re the he ari ng on th e m ot io ns to acqui t h adev enco nc lu de d. Se e Pri ce v . Vin cen t, 5 38 U.S. 63 4, 6 43 n.2 , 12 3 S .Ct. 1 84 8, 1 85 5 n .2 (2 00 3) (co ll ect in g c as es fin di ng no do ub le jeop ardy

vi ol at io n i n s im il ar ci rcu m st an ces ). Ther e was no do ub le jeop ardy vi ol at io n. X. Rect or ’s Ka st ig ar Cla im A. Intro du ct io n The in ve st ig at io n i n t hi s ca se be ga n i n 2 00 1, b utth e fi rs t i nd ic tm en t was no t returne d u nt il 20 05 . In Fe bruary of 2 00 3, Re ct or

be ga n c oo pe rat in g wi thth e go ve rn m en t i n t he ho pe s o f rec ei vi ng len ie nc y . He was i nt erv ie wedex te ns iv el y — h e cl ai m s fo r ab ou t 6 0 o r 70 ho ur s. He al so pro vi de d t he go ve rn m en t wi th a la rg e num

be r of do cu m en ts — h e cl ai m s i t was hu nd red s o f do cu m en ts am ou nt in g 120to “ hu nd red s, i f no t tho us an ds , of p ag es .” Rect or ’s coo pe rat io n was pro vi de d

un de r th e te rm s o f a p ro fferag reem en t i n wh ic h t he go ve rn m en t p ro m is edRect or th at , if the ne go ti at io ns fai le d, i t wo ul d n otus e th e in fo rm at io n h e p ro vi de d ag ai ns t h im

in it s ca se in ch ie f, with c ert ai n e xc ep ti on s. Dis ag reem en t ab ou t t he
na tu re an d e xt en t o f th os e ex cep ti on s g av e ri se to th is is su e aft er the go ve rn m en t
an d R ect or

fai le d t o re ach a pl ea b arg ai n a gr eem en t.

B. The P re-Tri al Mo ti on s The fir strumbli ng s t he reco rdrev eal s ab ou t t hi s i ss ue oc cu rredon th e ev e of tri al when th e g ov ern m en t fi le d am ot io n i n l im in e to pre ve ntRect orfro m arg ui ng to th e jury in h is op en in g s ta te m en t o r ot he rwis e th atth e g ov ern m en t h ad in di ct edhi m

in ret al ia ti on be cau se itdi d n otli ke whathe ha d s ai d dur in g t he pr of fer i nt erv ie ws. The m ot io n a ss ert edth atsi nc e Rec to r ha d s ou gh t an d re cei ve d pr ot ect io n i n t he ag reem en t fr om th e g ov ern m en t’s u si ng ag ai ns t h im st at em en ts he m ad e to in ve st ig at or s, i t wo ul d b e u nf ai r fo r hi m

to us e ag ai ns t t he go ve rn m en t th e fac t tha t h e h adm ad e st at em en ts . The co urt i nd ic at edth atif R ect ordi d u se be fo re the jury th e fac t tha t h e h adco op erat ed , th e g ov ern m en t wo ul d b e al lo wed to in tro du ce i n i ts cas e in ch ie f th e st at em en ts Rect orha d m ad e whi le co op erat in g. Rec to r rea ct edto th atpro sp ectwith awrit te n re sp on se to th e g ov ern m en t’s
m ot io n i n l im in e. Inhi s re sp on se Rect orarg ue d t ha t u nd er the term s o f th e p ro ffer 121ag reem en t n o i nf orm at io n o r do cu m en ts th athe ha d p ro vi de d o r an y de riv edlea ds
co ul d b e u se d a ga in sthi m , un le ss he tes ti fie d a t t he tri al co nt rary to t he st at em en ts he ha d m ad e u nd er the pro fferag reem en t. He as se rte d tha t i t was cri ti cal to hi s de fen se th atth e jury kn ow h e h adco op erat edwith t he go ve rn m en t, an d a rg ue d th atall owi ng th e g ov ern m en t t o u se st at em en ts he ha d m ad e o r do cum en ts he ha d
supp li edun de r th e p ro fferag reem en t, o r le ad s d eri ve d fr om th em , wou ldde pr iv e hi m of afai r tr ia l an d the be ne fitof h is pro fferbarg ai n. On t he same day

th atRect orfil edhi s m ot io n i n re sp on se to th e go ve rn m en t’s m ot io n i n l im in e, he als o fi le d h is own m ot io n i n l im in e se ek in g t o ex cl ud e fro m

th e tr ia l an y

ev id en ce the go ve rn m en t h adob ta in edas ares ul t o f hi s co op erat io n. In th atm ot io n, Re ct orcla im edth atun de r Kas ti ga r v. Un it edSta te s, 40 6 U.S. 4 41 , 92 S.Ct . 16 53 (19 72 ), th e g ov ern m en t was barredby the pro ffer ag reem en t “ fro m

pre se nt in g t o o r arg ui ng to th e jury any an d a ll ev id en ce i t ob ta in ed , eit he r di rect ly or in di rect ly, fro m in fo rm at io n a nddo cu m en ts [he ] pr ov id edto th e g ov ern m en t.” Re ct orpo in te d t o t he lan gu ag e in th e ag reem en t whi chpro hi bi te d t he us e ag ai ns t h im of “ [a]nythi ng rel at edto th e p ro ffer
. . . in
an y go ve rn m en t ca se -in -ch ie f.” He as ke d t he co urt t o e nf or ce the pro ffer ag reem en t an d a rg ue d tha t und er Kas ti ga r an d the term s o f th e ag reem en t t ha t “ th e

122go ve rn m en t h as anaffi rm at iv e dut y to pro ve to th e Co urt t ha t n o p artof i ts cas e ag ai ns t [h im ] is ‘ rel at ed ’ to th e in fo rm at io n [h e] pro vi de d.” So on th erea fte r, Rect orsupp le m en te d h is m ot io n i n l im in e wit h a no th er m ot io n a ndex hi bi ts co ns is ti ng of m em or an dapre paredby the go ve rn m en t’s in ve st ig at or s d et ai li ng hi s s ub st an ti al co op erat io n. Fo r ex am pl e, th e m em or an da sh owe d t ha t Re ct or

ha d p ro vi de d t he go ve rn m en t wi th fou r bo ok s o f do cu m en ts , wit h c op ie s o f le as e ag reem en ts , with c op ie s o f W -2 form s, an d wi th ot he r do cu m en ts , all de ta il in g t he rel at io ns hi ps be twee n Hi ll an d h is in ve st or s. Re ct or arg ue d t ha t the in ve st ig at or s’ m em or an dash owe d t ha t h e “ was th e so ur ce, ei th er di rect ly or in di rect ly, of

m uc h o f th e ev id en ce the go ve rn m en t i nt en ds to in tro du ce in th e tr ia l o f th is cas e.” Inli gh t o f th e g ov ern m en t’s af firm at iv e b ur de n t o p ro ve th atth e ev id en ce i t p la nn edto pre se ntag ai ns t Re ct orha d n otbe enob ta in edas a res ul t o f hi s p ro ffer , he a rg ue d t ha t t he go ve rn m en t s ho ul d b e requi redto de m on st rat e o ut si de th e p res en ce o f th e jury tha t i t h adanin de pe nd en t s ou rce f or ev ery do cu m en t o r wit ne ss itpl an ne d t o i nt ro du ce ag ai ns t h im at t ria l. Notrel is hi ng th e p ro sp ectof d el ay in g t he tri al whi le itco nduc te d ahe ari ng on th e p art ie s’ di sp ut e ab ou t the pro fferag reem en t, the di st ric t co urt t oo k Rec to r’s m ot io ns “un de r ad vi se m en t.” If the co urt ev er ex pr es sl y rul edon th os e m ot io ns , th e p art ie s h av e n otcit edth atrul in g t o u s an d we h av e n otbe enab le to 123fin d i t. As we ha ve m en ti on ed , ho wev er, the co urt h adalr eady in di cat edth atif Rec to r pu t b efo re the jury th e fac t t ha t h e h adco op erat edwith t he go ve rn m en t, the go ve rn m en t co ul d i nt ro du ce the st at em en ts he m ad e whi le co op erat in g. Und oubt ed ly as a res ul t o f th atrul in g, Re ct or ’s cou ns el di d n otm en ti onRect or ’s
co op erat io n t o t he jury du rin g h is op en in g s ta te m en t o r atan y ot he r ti m e dur in g th e tr ia l. C. The I ss ue Duri ng an d Aft er the Trial Dur in g t he co ur se of t he tri al , Rect ordi d u ns uc ces sf ul ly objec t o n a t l eas t el ev endi ffer en t o ccas io ns to th e ad m is si on of d oc um en ts on th e g ro un d t ha t t he y ha d b een de riv edfro m

hi s p ro fferst at em en ts . He di d n otob ject o n tha t g ro un d t o an y tes ti m on y . Afte r Rec to r was co nv ic te d o n 9 5 o f th e 1 20 co un ts ag ai ns t h im th atwere subm it te d t o t he jury, he fil eda “ Mo ti on to Dis m is s C on vi ct edCo un ts ,” whi ch 3 3
as se rte d tha t i t was fil ed“pu rs ua ntto Ru le 33 of t he Fed eral Ru le s o f Cri m in al Pro cedur e an d t he Fif

th Am en dm en t t o t he Co ns ti tu ti on of t he Uni te d S ta te s an d th e Due Pro ces s C laus e.” Inth atm ot io n R ect or ask edth e d is tri ctco urt “ to di sm is s t he co un ts of wh ic h h e was co nv ic te d” on th e g ro un d t ha t t he go ve rn m en t ha d v io la te d t he pro fferag reem en t b y us in g a ga in sthi m

at t ria l i nf

orm at io n a nd Rector wa s convicted of

conspirac y , mail fraud, w ire fr aud, and making f alse c redit 3 3 applications as c harg ed in Counts 19, 32, 34–38, 41–48, 63–85, 89–90, 129–49, 151–54, and 158–87 of the indictment. 124do cu m en ts he ha d p ro vi de d, as well as o th er ev id en ce o bt ai ne d thr ou gh lea ds he

ha d p ro vi de d. Th e m ot io n p ro m is edth ata supp le m en ta l o ne wou ldbe fil ed , andit
was . Inhi s s up pl em en ta l p os t-t ria l m ot io n, Re ct orarg ue d t ha t an y am bi gu it y in hi s p ro fferag reem en t s ho ul d b e co ns tru edag ai ns t t he go ve rn m en t as th e draft er, ci ti ng Uni te d S ta te s v . Pie la go , 13 5 F .3d70 3 (1 1t h C ir. 1 99 8) . He ass ert edth at th e p ro fferag reem en t the go ve rn m en t h addra fte d andsi gn edbro ad ly pro hi bi te d i t fro m us in g i nf orm at io n d ire ct ly obt ai ne d fr om hi m or i nd ire ct ly obt ai ne d fr om hi m th ro ug h u se of t he in fo rm at io n a nddo cu m en ts he ha d p ro vi de d. Rec to r arg ue d th atth e g ov ern m en t h adcle arl y us edag ai ns t h im

at tria l i nf

orm at io n “ rel at edto ” — the ke y

term fro m th e ag reem en t —

hi s s ta te m en ts an d d oc um en ts . Sp eci fic al ly, he ass ert edth athe ha d p ro vi de d t he go ve rn m en t wi th in fo rm at io n rel at edto 24 of t he witne ss es th atth e g ov ern m en t ca ll edat t ria l, 1 9 o f th e en ti ti es di sc us se d i n t he go ve rn m en t’s ca se in ch ie f, 14 8 e nd -u se r le as e ag reem en ts , and th e d oc um en ts th atwere l at er i nt ro du cedas Go ve rn m en t Ex hi bi ts 40 9, 5 46 , 91 3, 91 7, an d 9 18 . He als o a ss ert edth athe was o ne of t he fir stpe op le in te rv ie wedas pa rt o f th e g ov ern m en t’s i nv es ti ga ti on an d t ha t h is co op erat io n l edto m uc h o f th e ev id en ce the go ve rn m en t u se d a t t ria l. Infact , acco rd in g t o R ect or , hi s

125co op erat io n was so in st ru m en ta l t o t he go ve rn m en t’s ca se th athi s “ pr of fers m irr or th e g ov ern m en t’s ca se .” The go ve rn m en t re sp on de d t o R ect or ’s supp le m en ta l m ot io n b y arg ui ng th at itwas the well -es tabl is he d p ol ic y of t he Uni te d S ta te s At to rn ey ’s Offic e to gra nt on ly dire ctus e imm

un it y , no t d eri va ti ve us e imm un it y , inpro fferag reem en ts an d th atit s ag reem en t wi th Rect orwas c on si st en t wi th th atpo li cy . The go ve rn m en t al so arg ue d t ha t Re ct or ’s agr eem en t was no t co ntro ll edby K as ti ga r be cau se th at cas e in vo lv eda st atut ory

grantof i m

m un it y , whi ch ne ces sa ril y

pro hi bi ts de riv at iv e us e as well as d ire ctus e. By co nt ras t, Re ct or ’s imm

un it y ag reem en t was
co nt ractua l i n n atur e an d the refo re was co nt ro ll edby the term s o f th e ag reem en t. The go ve rn m en t co nc ed edth atun de r Pi el ag o a ndot he r de ci si on s an am bi gu ou s p ro fferag reem en t i s t o b e co ns tru edag ai ns t t he go ve rn m en t as th e dr aft er. Itarg ue d, h owe ve r, th atwhi le Rect or ’s pro fferag reem en t p ro hi bi te d di rectus e o f st at em en ts he ha d m ad e an d d oc um en ts he ha d p ro vi de d, i t un am bi gu ou sl y pe rm it te d t he us e o f th os e st at em en ts an d d oc um en ts to “ de ve lo p le ad s; see k l ik e d oc um en ta ti on fro m ot he r so ur ces ; o r to qu es ti on ot he r wit ne ss es ab ou t ce rta in co nduc t o r refr es h awitne ss ’ own reco ll ect io n.” The go ve rn m en t’s p os it io n was th atth e p ro ffer ag reem en t was no t
am bi gu ou s an d n on e o f it s t erm s wer e in co nf li ctbe cau se , un de r Pi el ag o, “ a 126pr of

fer’s ‘der iv at iv e u se ’ pr ov is io n s ho ul d b e rea d a s qua li fy in g, i ns te adof
co nt rad ic ti ng , th e p arag rap h o f th e p ro fferag reem en t p ro hi bi ti ng th e ‘dir ectus e’ of st at em en ts an d i nf

orm at io n o bt ai ne d i n apro ffer .” If tha t p os it io n wer e acce pt ed , th e g ov ern m en t co ul d u se ag ai ns t Re ct oran y ev id en ce tha t was de riv ed fro m st at em en ts he m ad e o r do cu m en ts he supp li eddu rin g t he pro fferpe rio d. 3 4 The go ve rn m en t’s p os it io n was ba se d o n t he lan gu ag e o f th e ag reem en t p ro vi di ng th at“ th e Gov ern m en t i s co m pl et el y free t o p ur su e an y

an d a ll in ve st ig at iv e le ad s de riv edin an y

way fro m th e p ro ffer .” The go ve rn m en t o pp os edRect or ’s reque stforanev id en ti ary he ari ng by arg ui ng th at“ itwou ldm ak e n o s en se to ho lda he ari ng in whi ch th e g ov ern m en t wou ldha ve to pro ve th atit s ev id en ce ag ai ns t Re ct or is no t d ire ct ly or in di rect ly tra ceab le to th e in fo rm at io n [h e] pro vi de d [b ecau se ] . . . [t]he p ro fferag reem en t ex pr es sl y pe rm it s t he go ve rn m en t t o d o ju stth at .” The go ve rn m en t d en ie d R ect or ’s con te nt io ns th athe ha d p ro vi de d do cu m en ts th atwere l at er i nt ro du cedas e xh ib it s attri al . It as se rte d t ha t “ [t]he
so ur ce o f ev ery pi ece o f do cu m en ta ry ev id en ce was id en ti fie d a t t he tri al , eit he r The g overnme nt also contende d that it was fre e to use a ny statements Rector ha d made 3 4 befor e the pr offe r agree ment, and that it also could use a ny statements and doc uments obtained from him duringthe period of the agree ment to rebut his testimony or in a pe rjury

prosec ution. Rector doe s not contest the last two of those points about use in re buttal or in a per jury prosec ution, but he never testified, so they

are irrele vant. As to the first point, about pre
agree ment statements, the re cord doe s not indicate that any of those we re use d at the trial, so that point appear s to be irre levant as w ell. 127th ro ug h ast ip ul at io n a s t o i ts so ur ce an d aut he nt ic it y or t hr ou gh th e p ro du ci ng wit ne ss on th e st an d,” an d i t i ns is te d t ha t n on e o f th atev id en ce h adco m e fro m Rec to r. Inot he r wor ds , Rect or was n ot“ th e lynchpi n o f th e in ve st ig at io n” th athe
m ad e h im se lf o utto be . Ins te ad , th e g ov ern m en t ar gu edth atitha d re cei ve d m uc h of th e sa m e ev id en ce fr om

m ul ti pl e so ur ces . Inhi s re pl y

to th e g ov ern m en t’s re sp on se , Rect orpo in te d o utth atth e pr of fer a gr eem en t ex pr es sl y

pe rm it te d t he go ve rn m en t t o u se an y in fo rm at io n h e supp li edto reb utan y

tes ti m on y

fro m hi m th atwas c on tra ry

to hi s p ro ffer ed st at em en ts an d i n apro se cu ti on of h im forpe rjury. His po in t was th atth ere was no t a s im il ar p ro vi si on ex pr es sl y pe rm it ti ng th e g ov ern m en t t o u se th e in fo rm at io n he pro vi de d t o d ev el op ot he r ev id en ce t o u se ag ai ns t h im ev enth ou gh he di d n ot te st ify andwas n otpro se cu te d fo r pe rjury. Insupp ort o f hi s co ns tru ct io n o f th e ag reem en t, Re ct orco nt ras te d i ts term s wit h t ho se of a no th er o ne th e g ov ern m en t h addra fte d a nden te redin to with a di ffer en t d efen da ntin th is cas e, on e who di d n otgo to tri al . Thatot he r ag reem en t pr oh ib it edth e u se of p ro ffer -d eri ve d i nf orm at io n i n g ran d ju ry

pro ceed in gs bu t ex pr es sl y pe rm it te d t he us e o f itag ai ns t t ha t d efen da ntin hi s t ria l i f no pl ea ag reem en t wer e rea ch ed
. The same was true of t he pro fferag reem en t i n the Pi el ag o c as e. See Pi el ag o, 1 35 F.3dat 7 10 . Rect orals o p oi nt edou t t ha t t he 128imm

un it y -p ro m is in g l an gu ag e th e g ov ern m en t p utin hi s p ro fferag reem en t was br oa de r th anth e la ng ua ge itpu t i nt o t he pro fferag reem en ts iten te redin to with Alci nd or an d s om e o f th e o th er co -d efen da nt s. As fo r th e g ov ern m en t’s co nt en ti on th atRect or ’s pro fferag reem en t ex pr es sl y pro vi de d fo r de riv at iv e u se , Rect orarg ue d t ha t t he go ve rn m en t’s in te rp ret at io n “ im

pr op erl y tri es to equa te th e ri gh t t o ‘pu rs ue ’ in ve st ig at iv e le ad s wit h t he rig htto ‘ us e’ suc h e vi de nc e ag ai ns t Re ct orin it s ca se in ch ie f.” Fu rth erm or e, if

th e ag reem en t’s p ro sc rip ti on pre cl ud edon ly the di rectus e o f in fo rm at io n re la te d t o R ect or ’s pro ffer , th enth e la ng ua ge pe rm it ti ng th e go ve rn m en t t o “ pu rs ue an y an d a ll in ve st ig at iv e le ad s d eri ve d i n any way fro m th e pr of fer” wou ldbe supe rfl uo us . Inad di ti on , Rect orrel ie d o n Un it edSta te s v . Sch m id ga ll , 25 F. 3d15 23 , 15 29 n.5 (11 th Cir . 19 94 ), to co un te r th e go ve rn m en t’s p os it io n t ha t h e was no t en ti tl edto a Kas ti ga r he ari ng m erel y be cau se hi s i m

m un it y st em m edfro m anin fo rm al ag reem en t i ns te adof ast atut e. D. The Au gu st16 , 20 07 Heari ng Fo ll owi ng th e sa lv o o f m ot io ns , on Aug us t 1 6, 2 00 7 t he co urt h el d ahe ari ng on Rect or ’s po st -tr ia l m ot io n t o d is m is s o n Kas ti ga r gr ou nd s al l o f th e co un ts on whi chhe ha d b een co nv ic te d. Re ct orto ldth e co urt tha t t he go ve rn m en t h ad adm it te d u si ng in it s i nv es ti ga ti on ev id en ce tha t i t h adde riv edfro m hi s p ro ffer
. 129The co urt as ke d t he Ass is ta ntUni te d S ta te s At to rn ey if t ha t was tru e. Sh e res po nd ed : “ Deri va ti ve us e, You r Hon or . Not— wh eny ousay us ed , I m ean , to — i n fu rth eri ng th e le ad s i n t he cas e an d i n i nt erv ie win g wi tn es se s.” Whi le ad am an tl y

de nyin g t ha t an y

of R ect or ’s in fo rm at io n o r st at em en ts were d ire ct ly adm it te d a t tria l, s he co nc ed edth at“ we di d wh atth e Gov ern m en t al way s d oe s i n th es e cas es , andth atis , we fol lo wedin a de riv at iv e way ; t ha t i s, u se d t he se th in gs fo r le ad s an d s o fo rth .” Sh e arg ue d tha t i f th e p ro fferag reem en t b arre d d eri va ti ve us e o f Rec to r’s st at em en ts ag ai ns t h im , th e g ov ern m en t wo ul d h av e h adto crea te a

“ ta in t b ox ,” whi ch itha d n otdo ne in th is cas e b ecau se “ no on e d oe s i t.” In ot he r wor ds , th e AUSA adm it te d tha t t he re h adbe enno effo rt t o s ep arat e th e at to rn ey s an d a ge nt s wh o i nt erv ie wedan d o bt ai ne d d oc um en ts fro m Rect orfro m

th os e who
subp oe na eddo cu m en ts , in te rv ie wedwitne ss es , pre pa redth e cas e fo r tr ia l, an d
ev en tu al ly trie d t he cas e ag ai ns t Re ct or . There was n o t ai ntbo x, n o C hi ne se wall
. Eve ry on e in vo lv edin th e p ro se cu ti on ha d a cces s t o a ll of R ect or ’s pro ffer ed st at em en ts an d d oc um en ts . Or so th e rep res en ta ti ve of t he go ve rn m en t ad m it te d
on th atoc cas io n. Afte r he ari ng fro m

bo th si de s, the di st ric t co urt ag reedwith R ect orth atth e pr of fer a gr eem en t p ro hi bi te d t he go ve rn m en t fr om us in g a ga in sthi m

any ev id en ce ob ta in edby usi ng th e in fo rm at io n a nddo cum en ts he ha d g iv enth e g ov ern m en t 130du rin g t he pro fferpe rio d. Th e co urt t ol d t he go ve rn m en t t ha t u nd er i ts read in g o f

th e p ro fferag reem en t, “ y oucanin ve st ig at e al l you wan t, b utth is says y ou ’re no t go in g t o u se an yth in g tha t h e g iv es y ouag ai ns t h im in hi s ca se in ch ie f.” The
co urt as ke d t he go ve rn m en t t o re sp on d i n wri ti ng with asupp le m en ta l m ot io n id en ti fy in g a n i nd ep en de ntso ur ce fo r eac h o f th e ex hi bi ts th atRect orha d c la im ed
were v io la ti on s o f th e p ro ffer ag reem en t. Rec to r po in te d o utto th e d is tri ctco urt t ha t ev enif the go ve rn m en t wer e ab le to id en ti fy

anin de pe nd en t s ou rce f

oreach of t he ex hi bi ts he ha d o bjec te d t o, t ha t di d n otm ean th atth e g ov ern m en t h adno t b reac he d t he ag reem en t. As h e ex pl ai ne d, t he ex hi bi ts he id en ti fie d wer e o nl y ex am pl es of wh athe ha d p ro vi de d th e g ov ern m en t. Rec to r’s co un se l s ta te d, “ I ob vi ou sl y can ’t tel l you a ll th e ev id en ce, p art ic ul arl y

when th ey ’ve ad m it te d t ha t t he y us edth e le ad s t o g etot he r ev id en ce, g etin do cu m en ts .” The g ov ern m en t’s the ory du rin g t he in ve st ig at io n an d t ria l was th atitco ul d u se th e in fo rm at io n R ect or supp li edno t o nl y

forth e pu rp os e o f pu rs ui ng lea ds ag ai ns t o th ers bu t al so in ord er t o o bt ai n e vi de nc e to us e in it s ca se in ch ie f ag ai ns t Re ct or . Rect or ’s cou ns el arg ue d t ha t “ I do n’t kno w ho w y ouge t awa y

fro m th atby say in g, wel l, n ow, we g otth e d oc um en ts fro m [Rec to r]
an d youcal l s om eo ne els e to bri ng [th os e d oc um en ts ] wit h you .” E. The Po st -Hear in g M ot io ns

131Afte r th e Aug us t 1 6, 2 00 7 h eari ng , th e g ov ern m en t fi le d i ts supp le m en ta l

res po ns e to Rect or ’s m ot io ns . The len gt hy sup pl em en ta l re sp on se in cl ud edso m e do cu m en ts subm it te d i n c am era a s wel l as th ree b in de rs of d oc um en ts pu rp orte dl y es tabl is hi ng anin de pe nd en t s ou rce f orth e sp eci fic ev id en ce tha t Re ct orha d al le ge d v io la te d the pro fferag reem en t. The go ve rn m en t ar gu edth atto th e ex te nt itha d p utin to ev id en ce an yth in g o bt ai ne d fr om Rect or , th atev id en ce was on ly
us edag ai ns t o th er d efen dant s an d re la te d t o c ou nt s i n wh ic h R ect orwas n ot ch arg ed
. The go ve rn m en t’s re sp on se su m m ari zedth e ex te ns iv e ev id en ce o f Rec to r’s gu il t tha t i t h adbe fo re h e st art edco op erat in g u nd er the pro fferag reem en t, an d i t arg ue d t ha t Re ct orha d e xa gg erat edth e ex te ntof h is co op erat io n, p oi nt in g o utth at ot he rs ha d c oo pe rat edlo ng be fo re Re ct ordi d. Th e g ov ern m en t i ns is te d t ha t al l t he
ev id en ce u se d a ga in stRect orat t ria l ca m e fro m th e wit ne ss es who ha d b een in te rv ie wedor f

ro m do cu m en ts th atha d b een subp oe na edbe fo re Re ct or be ga n co op erat in g. The go ve rn m en t ad de d t ha t Re ct orha d wai ve d a ny chal le ng e to th e adm is si on of s om e o f it s ex hi bi ts at t ria l. Fo r ex am pl e, th e g ov ern m en t p oi nt ed
ou t tha t Ex hi bi ts 1– 54 an d 6 0– 32 5 wer e adm it te d p ur su an t t o ast ip ul at io n s ig ne d by all of the de fen se att orne y s, i nc lu di ng Rect or ’s cou ns el , onbe ha lf o f th ei r 132cl ie nt s. The go ve rn m en t al so arg ue d t ha t an y Kast ig ar i ss ue s i nv ol vi ng an y of t he ot he r ev id en ce t o wh ic h R ect orha d n otob jecte d wer e wai ve d b ecau se th e d is tri ct co urt h adde ni edRect or ’s reque stfora co nt in ui ng ob jecti on on th atgro un d t o a ll of th e ev id en ce. Rec to r fi le d a“pa rti al rep ly” to th e g ov ern m en t’s s up pl em en ta l re sp on se . He ch arac te riz edhi s m ot io n a s o nl y a pa rti al rep ly becau se he in si st edth athe
co ul d n otad equa te ly repl y to th e g ov ern m en t’s re sp on se witho utad di ti on al di sc ov ery. Rect or

reque st eda ch an ce t o re vi ew th e d oc um en ts th atth e go ve rn m en t h adsubm it te d i n c am era a s wel l as ot he r do cu m en ts , in cl ud in g: “ al l
subp oe na s i ss ue d b y

th e g ov ern m en t af

te r th e in it ia l p ro ffer

of t he Defen dant ; al l di ari es an d m em or an daof t he go ve rn m en t ag en ts in vo lv edinth e Hil l in ve st ig at io ns ; al l i nt ern al go ve rn m en t m em or an daco nc ern in g t he Hil l in ve st ig at io n a fte r th e Defen da nt ’s pro ffer ; an d a ll do cu m en ts ob ta in edby the go ve rn m en t af

te r th e Defen da nt ’s in it ia l p ro ffer .” Rec to r po in te d o utth atev enif t he go ve rn m en t h adrece iv edev id en ce fr om ot he r so ur ces be fo re h e st art edco op erat in g, s ev eral of t he go ve rn m en t’s wi tn es se s were i nt erv ie wedaft er h e h adpro vi de d i nf orm at io n, an d t he bu rd enwas o n t he go ve rn m en t t o d em on st rat e anin de pe nd en t s ou rce f orth e te st im on y

of tho se wit ne ss es . Fu rth erm or e, Rec to r arg ue d, an y ev id en ce o bt ai ne d fr om

hi m an d 133adm it te d a t tria l co ns ti tu te d avi ol at io n o f th e p ro fferag reem en t ev enif t ha t

ev id en ce p ert ai ne d o nl y

to ch arg es ag ai ns t o th er d efen dant s b ecau se Rect orwas de ni eda se ve ran ce an d “ th e g ov ern m en t b le nd edall co un ts , fact s, d oc um en ts an d wit ne ss es to ge th er.” Res po nd in g t o t he go ve rn m en t’s ar gu m en t t ha t h e h adwaiv edan y ob jecti on s t o t he adm is si bi li ty of cert ai n d oc um en ts ba se d o n h is st ip ul at io ns to th ei r au th en ti ci ty, Rec to r po in te d o utth atth e st ip ul at io ns di d “ no t wai ve an y ob jecti onto th e ad m is si onof s ai d d oc um en t[s ] on an y ot he r gr ou nd s.” He al so rei te rat edth atth e b ur de n was no t o n h im to en su re tha t t he ag reem en t was en fo rced , bu t i ns te adth e b ur de n was on th e g ov ern m en t t o e ns ur e th atth e ag reem en t was no t b reac he d. Fo r supp ort, Re ct orcit edUni te d S ta te s v . Greg ory , 73 0 F .2d69 2 (1 1th C ir. 1 98 4) , inwhi ch we expl ai ne d t ha t “ a [Kas ti ga r] rul in g on ly on [t he adm is si on of] th os e it em s i de nt ifi ed[an d o bjec te d t o] by the de fen da nt s i s n otsu ffi ci en t” be cau se th e “ de fen dant s co ul d n otbe pre su m edto ha ve kn owl ed ge of a ll of t he ev id en ce p res en te d t o the gra ndjury or em pl oyed i n th e Gov ern m en t’s i nv es ti ga ti on .” Id . at 6 98 . W e h adrem an de d t ha t ca se foran ev id en ti ary he ari ng forth e g ov ern m en t t o “ sh ow h ow i t ac qu ire d a ll of the
ev id en ce ad m it te d b el ow.” Id . (ci ti ng Uni te d S ta te s v . Sei ffert, 4 63 F.2d10 89 , 10 92 (5t h C ir. 1 97 2) ). 134F. The Dec em be r 12 , 20 07 Heari ng Fo ll owi ng th is sec on d v ol le y of r es po ns es an d re pl ie s, the di st ric t co urt sc he du le d asec on d h eari ng onRect or ’s m ot io n t o d is m is s, n ot in g t ha t Re ct or ’s
co un se l wo ul d h av e anop po rtu ni ty to re vi ew do cu m en ts subm it te d i n c am era an d
m ak e fu rth er ar gu m en ts to th e co urt. The he ari ng was s ch edul edforDecem be r 12 , 20 07 . On th atda te , th e co urt g av e Rec to r’s at to rn ey ap pr ox im at el y

30 m in ut es to rev ie w all of t he tra ns act io n re po rts an d g ran d ju ry subp oe na s t ha t p red at ed Rec to r’s pr of

fer, an d t he n i t d en ie d h is reque stforanev id en ti ary he ari ng . The
co urt fo un d t ha t “ th e p art ie s [h ad ] subm it te d e ve ryth in g t ha t co ul d b e subm it te d o n th is is su e o f whe th er o r no t the ag reem en t h as be envi ol at ed .” It n ot edth atRect or ha d “ subm it te d a ll of [ hi s] in te rv ie ws,” a nd“ ex hi bi ts th at[he ] co nt en d[ ed ] were de riv edor t he fru it s o f th os e in te rv ie ws,” a ndth e “ Gov ern m en t [h ad ] go ne to
m as si ve effo rt a ndsubm it te d t he se th ree h ug e n ot eb oo ks of m at eri al s p lu s al l t he
m at eri al th at[Rec to r] revi ewedin cam era to da y .” Des pi te fin di ng th atth e la ng ua ge of t he pro fferag reem en t was bro ad
en ou gh to en co m

pa ss de riv at iv e u se , th e co urt co nc lu de d t ha t “ as to each ex hi bi t to whi chth ere was anob

jecti on th e Gov ern m en t’s s up pl em en ta l re sp on se sh ows th atth e Gov ern m en t h adanin de pe nd en t l eg it im at e so ur ce fo r th e d oc um en t,” a nd , th eref or e, “ th e Gov ern m en t [h ad ] m etit s b ur de n o f sh owi ng th atth ere was no 135vi ol at io n o f th e p ro fferag reem en t.” ( em ph as is ad de d) . The co urt fu rth er co nc lu de d t ha t Re ct or ’s m ot io n t o d is m is s s ho ul d b e d en ie d b ecau se : (1 ) hi s st at em en ts an d t he do cu m en ts he pro vi de d wer e n otadm it te d a t t ria l; (2) he ha d
no t o bjec te d t o the tes ti m on y of a ny witn es se s o n t he gro un ds th atitwas d eri ve d fro m (or“ rel at edto ”) h is pro ffer ; (3 ) th e g ov ern m en t was no t re qu ire d t o n eg at e ev ery po ss ib il it y

th atev id en ce t ai nt edby Recto r’s pr of fer was us edag ai ns t h im ; an d (4 ) an y

erro r was ha rm le ss be y on d areas on ab le do ub t. Onth os e b as es th e co urt d en ie d R ect or ’s m ot io n t o d is m is s al l o f th e co un ts on whi ch he ha d b een co nv ic te d. G. The Kas ti ga r Is su e o n Ap pe al Rec to r co nt en ds th atth e g ov ern m en t b reac he d t he pro fferag reem en t an d th ereb y vi ol at edhi s ri gh ts to du e p ro ces s an d afai r tr ia l. Inrev ie win g t he di st ric t co urt’s d eci si on of t hi s i ss ue , “ we res ol ve is su es of l aw, in cl ud in g t he m ean in g o f [Rec to r’s] im

m un it y ag reem en t, d e n ov o.” Uni te d S ta te s v . Sch wart z, 54 1 F .3d 13 31 , 13 55 n.6 9 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 8) . W e rev ie w th e d is tri ctco urt’s d en ia l o f an
ev id en ti ary he ari ng on ly for an ab us e o f di sc ret io n a ndan y factfin di ng s o nl y

for cl ear e rro r. Uni te d S ta te s v . Kapo rd el is , 56 9 F .3d12 91 , 13 08 , 13 13 (11 th Cir
. 20 09 ). A cou rt, b y

de fin it io n, ab us es it s d is cret io n wh enitba se s a d eci si on on an erro ne ou s l eg al pre m is e. Koo n v . Uni te d S ta te s, 5 18 U.S. 81 , 10 0, 1 16 S.Ct . 20 35 , 13620 47 (19 96 ); Yo un g v . New Pro ces s St eel , LP, 41 9 F .3d12 01 , 12 03 (11 th Cir
.

20 05 ); Un it edSta te s v . Bro wn, 3 32 F.3d13 41 , 13 43 (11 th Cir . 20 03 ). A clea r erro r injud gm en t al so co ns ti tu te s an ab us e o f di sc ret io n, as do es a de ci si on ap pl y in g t he law i n a n u nr eas on ab le or i nc orrectm an ne r. Nore lu s v . Denn y ’s, In c., 62 8 F .3d12 70 , 12 80 (11 th Cir . 20 10 ); B ro wn v . Ala. Dep t. o f Tran sp ., 59 7 F.3 d 1 16 0, 1 17 3 (1 1t h C ir. 2 01 0) ; M oo rer v . Dem op ol is W at erwo rk s & Sewer Bd ., 37 4 F .3d99 4, 9 96 –9 7 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 4)
.

“ Due pro ces s re qu ire s t he go ve rn m en t t o a dh ere t o t he term s o f an y pl ea ba rg ai n o r imm

un it y ag reem en t i t m ak es .” Uni te d S ta te s v . Harv ey , 86 9 F .2d 14 39 , 14 43 (11 th Cir . 19 89 ) (en ba nc ). And“be cau se du e p ro ces s re qu ire s u s t o en fo rce t he go ve rn m en t’s ag reem en t . . . , we app ly the same rul es an d m etho d o f
an al y si s t o a n i nf

orm al gra ntof u se or tran sa ct io na l i m m un it y as we wou ldto a fo rm al gra nt .” Id. at14 44 . Sin ce Re ct or ’s imm un ity st em s fr om

hi s ag reem en t 3 5 This is not i nconsistent with our conc lusion in Taylor v. Singleta ry , 148 F.3d 1276 3 5 (11th Cir. 1998), that an infor mal immunit y

agree ment does not provide the sa me protec tions as a formal statutory

grant of immunity

under 18 U .S.C. §§ 6001–03. I d. at 1282–83 n.7. In Taylor, we he ld that a habe as petitioner’ s testimony g iven under

an informa l immuni ty

agree ment in an earlier fe dera l prosecution wa s not per se involuntary , which might have pr evente d it from being used to impeac h his testimony at his own state prose cution. “B eca use an infor

mally -immuniz ed witness reta ins his Fifth Amendment privileg e, he must invoke that privileg e if he wishes to prec lude the use of

the testimony

ag ainst him in a criminal case ; he ca nnot later c laim that he was ‘compe lled’ to testify

simply beca use he f ulfilled his promise to the prosecutor and did not invoke the privileg e.” I d. This case is not li ke Ta

ylor. Rector doe s not sugg est that he wa s compelled to testify ag ainst himself. Instead, Rec tor insists t hat the g overnme nt brea ched its agree ment with him not to use in its case in chie f the infor mation that he had pr ovided it, and by doing so theg overnme nt 137wit h t he pro se cu to r an d n otfro m a fo rm al st atut ory

gra ntof i m

m un it y , inord er t o de te rm in e th e sc op e o f hi s i m m un it y , we m

us t l oo k t o a nd , if n eces sary , in te rp ret th e te xtof t he ag reem en t. Tay lo r, 14 8 F .3dat 1 28 4 (“ Whe n e nf or ci ng an imm un it y ag reem en t, we l oo k t o t he term s o f th e ag reem en t i ts el f . . . .”); Uni te d St at es v. Th om

ps on , 25 F.3d15 58 , 15 62 (11 th Cir . 19 94 ) (“ Inde te rm in in g t he
ex te ntof i m

m un it y affo rd eda de fen da ntun de r an[in fo rm al ] imm un it y ag reem en t, a co urt s ho ul d app ly bas ic pri nc ip le s o f co nt ractlaw.”) . In thi s s en se , th e p ro ffer ag reem en t i s a c on tra ctRect oris see ki ng to en fo rce. Th e co nt ract in g p art ie s di sa gr ee ab ou t the m ean in g o f it s t erm s.

1. Th e Sco pe of t he Pro fferAgre em en t W e m us t fi rs t d et erm in e th e sc op e o f th e p ro m is e th e g ov ern m en t m ad e to Rec to r in th e p ro fferag reem en t. The di st ric t co urt ru le d t ha t t he go ve rn m en t h ad pr om is edno t t o u se in it s ca se in ch ie f ag ai ns t Re ct oran y ev id en ce d eri ve d fr om th e in fo rm at io n a nddo cu m en ts he pro vi de d u nd er the ag reem en t. We agre e. The pr of fer a gr eem en t s ta te s, i n re le va ntpa rt, t ha t: Anythi ng rel at ed to th e pr of fer can no t an d wil l no t be us ed ag ai ns t [Rec to r] in an y Gov ern m en t cas e-i n- ch ie f. Nor wou ld an y st at em en ts be us ed ag ai ns t [Rec to r] to in crea s e h i s of fen se le ve l pu rs ua nt to th e Sen te nc in g Gui de li ne s (Sec ti on 1B 1.8 ) sh ou ld ch arg es be fil e d o r a co nv ic ti on oc cu r. Howev er, an y pr ev io us st at em en ts by [Rec to r] do no t violated his rights to due proce ss and a f air trial. Although an informa l gr ant of immunity does not bringwith it the full panoply of bene fits associated w ith a statutory grant of immunity , the g overnme nt stil l must be held to its end of the barg ain. 138f

al l wit hi n th is 1B 1.8 pr ot ect io n. Als o, th e Gov ern m en t is co m pl et el y f r e e to pu rs ue an y an d al l in ve st ig at iv e le ad s de riv ed in an y way f r o m th e pr of fer. Si m il arl y , no th in g, in cl ud in g Ru le 11 (e)( 6) , Fed eral Ru le s of Cri m in al Pro cedur e, sh al l pr ev en t th e G o v e rn ment fro m us in g th e subs ta nc e of th e pr of

fer an d/or le ad s de riv ed th eref ro m fo r im

pe ach m en t or in reb ut ta l te st im on y sh ou ld [Rec to r] subs eque nt l y te st ify in an y pr oc eed in g co ntrar y to th e subs ta nc e of th e pr of fer or in a pr os ecu ti on fo r pe rjury, fals e st at em en ts , or o bs tru ct io n o f jus ti ce. (em ph as is ad de d)
. The two sen te nc es to whi ch we have ad de d e m ph as is po in t i n o pp os it e di rect io ns . The fi rs t o ne po in ts to wardRect or ’s po si ti on be cau se th e p art ic ip ia l ph ras e “ rel at edto ” is a br oa d o ne , andev id en ce d ev el op edus in g the in fo rm at io n he pro ffer edis “ rel at edto ” th e p ro ffer . See Mo sh ea v . Nat’l Tran sp . Safet y Bd ., 57 0 F .3d34 9, 3 52 (D.C. Cir . 20 09 ) (“ W it ho utge tt in g i nt o am et ap hysic al di sc us si on of t he m ean in g o f th e p hr as e ‘relat edto ,’ itsu ffi ces he re t o s ay th atth e wor ds ‘ rel at edto ’ are b ro ad .”) (ci ti ng Cel ot ex Co rp . v. Edwa rd s, 5 14 U.S. 30 0, 30 7– 08 , 11 5 S .Ct. 1 49 3, 1 49 8– 99 (19 95 )); Pen nz oi l Ex pl or at io n a ndPro d. Co . v. Ram co Ener gy Ltd., 1 39 F.3d10 61 , 10 67 (5th C ir. 1 99 8) (“ [C]ou rts di st in gu is h ‘narro w’ arb it rat io n c laus es th aton ly requ ire arb it rat io n o f di sp ut es ‘ ari si ng ou t o f’ th e co nt ractfro m

bro adarb itrat io n c laus es go ve rn in g d is pu te s t ha t ‘rela te to ’ or ‘are co nn ect edwith’ th e co ntract .”); Ran do m Hou se W eb st er’s Un ab rid ge d Dict io na ry

16 26 (2ded . 19 93 ) (d efi ni ng “ rel at ed ” to m ean “ as so ci at ed [,]
co nn ect ed ,” an d “ al li edby natur e, or ig in , ki ns hi p, m arri ag e, et c.”). The sec on d 139em

ph as iz edsen te nc e p oi nt s t owa rdth e g ov ern m en t’s p os it io n b ecau se th e co m bi ne d fo rce o f th e ad ve rb an d p red ic at e ad jecti ve “ co m

pl et el y free ,” whi ch de sc rib es th e li be rty the go ve rn m en t h as to pu rs ue in ve st ig at iv e le ad s d eri ve d fr om th e p ro ffer edin fo rm at io n, i s al so bro ad . Whe n two s en te nc es di ve rg e ina si ng le pa rag rap h a ndth e rea de r can no t t el l wh ic h d ire ct io n t o t ak e, th e o ne who lai d o ut th e d iv erg in g p aths lo se s. Am bi gu it ie s ar e co ns tru edag ai ns t t he go ve rn m en t as th e draft er o f pr of

fer a gr eem en ts , Pie la go , 13 5 F .3dat 7 09 –1 0, Harve y , 86 9 F .2d at14 52 , andth atm ak es all th e d iff eren ce. The re i s al so for ce t o R ect or ’s po in t ab ou t t he ag reem en t ex pl ic it ly pr ov id in g t ha t n othi ng wou ldpre ve ntth e g ov ern m en t “ fro m us in g the subs ta nc e o f th e p ro fferan d/ orlea ds de riv edth eref ro m forim pe ach m en t o r in reb ut ta l te st im on y sh ou ld[Rec to r] sub se qu en tl y tes ti fy in an y pro ceed in g c on tra ry

to th e subs ta nc e o f th e p ro fferor i n apro se cu ti on forpe rjury, fals e st at em en ts , or ob st ru ct io n o f jus ti ce.” Th e p oi ntis th atth e ag reem en t ex pr es sl y pe rm it s t he go ve rn m en t t o u se lea ds de riv edfro m th e p ro ffer edin fo rm at io n a ga in stRect orin sp eci fie d c irc um st an ces , no ne of wh ic h i s i ts cas e in ch ie f. The i nf eren ce i s t ha t whi chis no t i nc lu de d i s ex cl ud ed . See In re Cel ot ex Co rp ., 48 7 F .3d13 20 , 13 34 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 7) (“ The do ctrin e o f ex pr es si o u ni us estex cl us io alt eri us in st ru ct s th atwhen cert ai n m at te rs are m en ti on edin a co nt ract , ot he r si m il ar m at te rs no t 140m en ti on edwere i nt en de d t o b e ex cl ud ed .”) (quo ta ti on m ark s o m it te d) ; Un it ed

St at es v. Tran sf

ig ur aci on , 44 2 F .3d12 22 , 12 32 (9t h C ir. 2 00 6) (co ns tru in g p le a ag reem en t ag ai ns t the go ve rn m en t an d app lying th e can on of e xp res si o u ni us est ex cl us io alt eri us ); s ee al so Uni te d S ta te s v . Koo nc e, 99 1 F .2d69 3, 6 98 (11 th Cir
. 19 93 ) (“ The [ex pr es si o u ni us in te rp ret at iv e] cano n i s fr eque nt ly cite d a nd
em pl oyed b ecau se in m an y

cir cum st an ces itm ak es go odsen se .”). Fi na ll y , th ere i s al so th e fac t t ha t i n o th er p ro fferag reem en ts , in cl ud in g o ne s th e g ov ern m en t u se d wi th ot he r de fen da nt s i n thi s v ery cas e, itex pr es sl y res erv ed th e ri gh t t o u se de riv edev id en ce ag ai ns t t he de fen da nt . For e xa m pl e, th e ag reem en t the go ve rn m en t draft edan d e nt eredin to with c o- de fen da ntAlci nd or st at edth atth e g ov ern m en t “ res erv es th e ri gh t t o p ur su e an y an d a ll in ve st ig at iv e le ad s d eri ve d fr om

st at em en ts an d i nf

orm at io n a ndto us e su ch de riv at iv e ev id en ce in an y cri m in al or c iv il pro ceed in g a ga in stMr. Alc in do r an d o th ers .” See Sch wart z, 54 1 F .3dat 1 35 5 (q uo ti ng th e p ro fferag reem en t i n t ha t ca se whi ch
ex pr es sl y pro vi de d t ha t “ [t]he Uni te d S ta te s m ay m ak e d eri va ti ve us e o f th e st at em en ts [th e d efen da nt ] m ak es du rin g the pro fferan d m ay pu rs ue in ve st ig at iv e le ad s t he refr om , andwou ldno t b e requi redto pro ve anin de pe nd en t s ou rce a t an y Kas ti ga r orot he r he ari ng he ldth ereo n.” ); P ie la go , 13 5 F .3dat 7 10 (qu ot in g the pr of fer a gr eem en t i n t ha t ca se whi ch st at edth at“ [t]he go ve rn m en t al so ex pr es sl y 141res erv es th e ri gh t t o p ur su e an y an d a ll in ve st ig at iv e le ad s d eri ve d fr om [th e de fen da nt ’s] st at em en ts or i nf orm at io n a ndus e su ch de riv at iv e ev id en ce i n a ny cri m in al or c iv il pro ceed in g a ga in sthe r an d/ orothe rs .”). The a gr eem en ts it dr aft edin Sch wart z, in Pie la go , andinth is ve ry cas e fo r co -d efen da ntAlci nd or sh ow t ha t t he go ve rn m en t kno ws h ow t o c le arl y an d e xp res sl y

res erv e th e ri gh t t o m ak e d eri va ti ve us e o f pr of fere d i nf orm at io n a ga in stth e o ne supp lying itwhen th e go ve rn m en t wan ts to do so . For wh at ev er re as on , th e g ov ern m en t d idno t d o t ha t in Rect or ’s cas e. Becaus e o f th at , andgi ve n t he am bi gu it y in th e la ng ua ge itdi d
us e, th e g ov ern m en t was no t en ti tl edto us e d eri va ti ve ev id en ce ag ai ns t Re ct or , who ne ve r to okth e st an d a ndwho was n otbe in g p ro se cu te d fo r pe rjury or fal se st at em en ts or o bs tru ct io n o f jus ti ce. Fo r th os e rea so ns , we agr ee wi th th e d is tri ctco urt’s i nt erp ret at io n o f th e pr of fer a gr eem en t: itforbi ds th e u se of d eri va ti ve ev id en ce ag ai ns t Re ct or . For th e rea so ns th atfol lo w, ho wev er, we d is ag ree wi th th e d is tri ctco urt ab ou t wh ethe r th e h eari ng itco nduc te d was su ffi ci en t fo r itto de ci de th atth e g ov ern m en t d idno t us e ag ai ns t Re ct oran y

ev id en ce d eri ve d fr om

th e in fo rm at io n h e supp li edun de r th e p ro ffer
. 2. Th e Den ia l o f anEvi de nt ia ry Heari ng on th e Is su e o f Whe th er Deri va ti ve Evi de nc e Was Use d Ag ai ns t Re ct or

142“ [W] he n p res en te d wi tha Kas ti ga r ch al le ng e, a co urt’s t as k i s t o d et erm in e

whe th er an y

of t he ev id en ce u se d a ga in stth e d efen da ntwas i n a ny way de riv ed fro m hi s co m pe ll edimm

un iz edtes ti m on y .” Sch m id ga ll , 25 F.3dat 1 52 8; Uni te d St at es v. Ham

pt on , 77 5 F .2d14 79 , 14 85 (11 th Cir . 19 85 ). The g ov ern m en t h as th e b ur de n o f pr ov in g tha t al l o f th e ev id en ce i t o bt ai ne d a ndus edag ai ns t t he de fen da nt , in cl ud in g t he tes ti m on y of o th er wi tn es se s, was un ta in te d a t ev ery st ep of th e in ve st ig at io n b y

imm un iz edtes ti m on y . See Sch m id ga ll , 25 F.3dat 1 52 8 (ci ti ng Ham

pt on , 77 5 F .2dat 1 48 9) . Even if t he go ve rn m en t d idus e imm un iz ed te st im on y in it s ca se ag ai ns t Re ct or , “ anin di ct m en t o r co nv ic ti on m ay be up he ld
on a fi nd in g t ha t the us e o f su ch tai nt edev id en ce was harm le ss be y on d a
reas on ab le do ub t.” Sc hm id ga ll , 25 F.3dat 1 52 9. The di stric t co urt m ad e se ve ral leg al erro rs in de ci di ng th atth e h eari ng it
co nduc te d was su ffi ci en t fo r itto co nc lu de th atth e g ov ern m en t h adno t v io la te d it s ag reem en t n otto us e d eri va ti ve ev id en ce ag ai ns t Re ct or . One o f th os e err or s i s th at , at t he go ve rn m en t’s u rg in g, t he co urt co ns id eredth e d eri va ti ve ev id en ce i ss ue on ly as to th e ev id en ce t o wh ic h R ect orha d o bjec te d dur in g t he tri al . Thatis
co nt rary to o urde ci si on inUni te d S ta te s v . Greg ory , 73 0 F .2d69 2 (1 1t h C ir. 19 84 ). In t ha t ca se , as i n t hi s o ne , th e d is tri ctco urt re qu ire d t he go ve rn m en t t o sh ow an in de pe nd en t s ou rce f oron ly the ev id en ce tha t t he de fen da nt s h ad

143id en ti fie d a ndob jecte d t o. We found“ no supp ort fo r affi rm an ce o f th atpra ct ic e in li gh t o f Kas ti ga r, an d thi s C ou rt’s app li cat io n o f Kas ti ga r in Uni te d S ta te s v . Sei ffert, 4 63 F.2d10 89 (5t h C ir. 1 97 2) .” Id . at 6 98 . W e ex pl ai ne d t ha t t he pr ob le m was t ha t “ [t]he de fen da nt s co ul d n otbe pre su m edto ha ve kn owl ed ge of al l o f th e ev id en ce . . . em pl oyed i n t he go ve rn m en t’s i nv es ti ga ti on . Und er s uc h ci rcu m st an ces , a ru li ng on ly on t ho se it em s i de nt ifi edby the de fen dant s i s n ot su ffi ci en t.” Id .; s ee al so Ham pt on , 77 5 F .2dat 1 48 5 (“ [I]n o rd er t o s us ta in [an ] in di ct m en t, the go ve rn m en t [h as ] th e b ur de n o f es tabl is hi ng th atall of t he
ev id en ce p res en te d t o t he gra ndjury (an d u lt im at el y all of the ev id en ce t o b e ut il iz edat t ria l) wa s d eri ve d fr om leg it im at e, in de pe nd en t s ou rces .”). W e rem an de d fo r anev id en ti ary he ari ng to de te rm in e whe th er the go ve rn m en t co ul d pr ov e th atall of t he ev id en ce i t i nt ro du cedat t ria l — no t ju stth e ev id en ce the de fen da nt s o bjec te d t o —was d eri ve d fr om a so ur ce i nd ep en de ntfro m th e te st im on y th atwas c om

pe ll edun de r a g ran t o f imm un it y . Grego ry , 73 0 F .2dat 69 8. OurGreg ory

de ci si on requi res a rem an d fo r a fu ll ev id en ti ary he ari ng in th is
cas e atwhi ch th e g ov ern m en t wi ll have th e b ur de n o f sh owi ng th atitdi d n ot vi ol at e th e te rm s o f it s p ro fferag reem en t wi th Rect or . The g ov ern m en t m us t

144“ sh ow h ow i t ac qu ire d a ll of th e ev id en ce ad m it te d [a ga in stRect or ] be lo w.” Greg ory , 73 0 F .2dat 6 98 (qu ot in g S ei ffert, 4 63 F.2dat 1 09 2)
. Alt ho ug h t he go ve rn m en t i nc lu de d p orti on s o f in te rv ie ws co nduc te d a nd
co pi es of s ub po en as is su edbe fo re Re ct or ’s pro fferas p artof t he m at eri al s i t subm it te d t o t he di st ric t co urt, tha t was no t en ou gh to carry it s b ur de n. Th os e m at eri al s d idno t ru le ou t the po ss ib il it y th atso m e o f th e in fo rm at io n tha t Re ct or supp li edwas u se d t o d ev el op so m e o f th e ev id en ce p res en te d a ga in sthi m at t ria l. The in qu iry tha t Gre go ry an d d eci si on s l ik e itrequi re ca n s el do m be sat is fie d b y

a m ere d oc um en t dum

p. An d e ve n i f itco ul d b e, th e d efen da ntm us t b e g iv en ad equa te ti m e to pi ck

th ro ug h the du m

p. Re ct or ’s cou ns el was g iv enon ly 30
m in ut es to rev ie w all of t he in cam era m at eri al s t ha t t he go ve rn m en t h adsubm it te d to th e co urt. The re i s an othe r pr ob le m with t he pro cedur e th atwas fo ll owe d. Des pi te Rec to r’s reque st , th e h eari ng on th e Kas ti ga r is su e was no t an ev id en ti ary on e, at le as t n otin th e se ns e th attes ti m on y was t ak en(al th ou gh do cu m en ts were subm it te d) . As we h av e ex pl ai ne d, “ [u ]nle ss th e g ov ern m en t re li es so le ly upo n ev id en ce o bt ai ne d p rio r to th e imm un iz edtes ti m on y , th e p rin ci pl es of Kas ti ga r ge ne ral ly requ ire (as a pr act ic al m at te r) a s ho win g t ha t p ro se cu ti ng of fic ia ls an d t he ir a ge nt s wer e aware of t he imm un it y pro bl em an d fo ll owe d 145rel iabl e p ro cedur es forseg reg at in g t he imm un iz edtes ti m on y

an d i ts fru it s fr om of fic ia ls pu rs ui ng any

subs eque ntin ve st ig at io ns .” Ham pt on , 77 5 F .2dat 1 49 0 (ci ta ti on om it te d) . It i s u nd is pu te d t ha t the go ve rn m en t at to rn ey s an d a ge nt s wer e un aware of t he de riv at iv e u se pro bl em an d m ad e n o e ffo rt t o k eep th e in fo rm at io n Rec to r pr ov id edan d i ts fru it s awa y fro m th os e who pro se cu te d h im at tria l. W e kno w th atth ey

m ad e n o e ffo rt t o d o t ha t b ecau se at the Aug us t 1 6, 2 00 7 he ari ng th e g ov ern m en t t oo k t he po si ti on th atitha d b een co m pl et el y free to us e de riv at iv e ev id en ce ag ai ns t Re ct or . The AUSA to ldth e co urt, am on g o th er thi ng s, th atitwas p erfe ct ly oka y for th e g ov ern m en t t o u se Rect or ’s in fo rm at io n i n a

“ cl as si c d eri va ti ve ” way

by con fro nt in g a no th er wi tn es s wi th itin ord er t o pe rs ua de hi m

to pl eadgu il ty andtes ti fy ag ai ns t Re ct or . That“ cl as si c d eri va ti ve ”
us e o f Rec to r’s tes ti m on y wou ldha ve vi ol at edth e p ro fferag reem en t as th e di st ric t co urt an d thi s C ou rt h av e in te rp ret edit . See Sch m id ga ll , 25 F.3dat 1 52 8 (“ Pro hi bi te d i nd ire ctde riv at io n i nc lu de s u si ng imm un iz edtes ti m on y

to he lp sh ap e th e que st io ni ng of a no th er wi tn es s.”)
. W e kno w th atth e g ov ern m en t’s at to rn ey s an d a ge nt s t oo k n o p recaut io ns to en su re tha t the in fo rm at io n R ect orsupp li edwas n otus edto de ve lo p e vi de nc e ag ai ns t h im

be cau se th atis whatth e AUSA to ldth e d is tri ctco urt atth e Aug us t 1 6, 20 07 he ari ng . She forth rig ht ly adm it te d t ha t i f th e g ov ern m en t h adkn ownth e 146pr of

fer a gr eem en t b arre d d eri va ti ve us e o f Rec to r’s st at em en ts ag ai ns t h im , th e go ve rn m en t wo ul d h av e h adto crea te a “ ta in t b ox ,” whi ch itdi d n otdo in th is cas e be cau se “no on e d oe s i t.” By “no on e d oe s i t,” we a ss um e sh e m ean t t ha t t he go ve rn m en t h adbe encare fu l i n o th er ca se s t o d raftim m un it y ag reem en ts to pe rm itde riv at iv e u se , so m ethi ng itne gl ect edto do in Rect or ’s cas e. The re i s an othe r fac t tha t s ta nd s up a ndsh ou ts fro m th e tr an sc rip t. Bef

or e sh e kne w th atth e d is tri ctco urt wo ul d ru le ot he rwis e, th e AUSA co nc ed edto th e di st ric t co urt tha t “ we di d wh atth e Gov ern m en t al way s d oe s i n t he se cas es , and th atis , we fol lo wedin a de riv at iv e way ; t ha t i s, u se d t he se th in gs forlea ds an d s o fo rth .” Thatst at em en t ca n b e in te rp ret edas a n a dm is si on th atth e g ov ern m en t d id vi ol at e th e p ro fferag reem en t, as th e d is tri ctco urt an d t hi s C ou rt h av e in te rp ret ed it . The AUSA’s st at em en t m ay be subjec t t o a no th er i nt erp ret at io n b ut , at t he ve ry le as t, i f sh e fai ls to tes ti fy an d c red ib ly exp la in th atst at em en t, the go ve rn m en t wi ll
no t b e ab le to carry

it s b ur de n o f pr ov in g t ha t i t m ad e n o d eri va ti ve us e o f Rec to r’s in fo rm at io n. In v ie w of a ll of t he se cir cum st an ces , a th or ou gh ev id en ti ary

3 6 in qu iry, inc lu di ng tes ti m on y fro m all of t ho se who bu il t an d p res en te d t he cas e We do not mean to imply that the AUSA or a

nyone involved in the investig ation or 3 6 prese ntation of the g overnme nt’s case acte d in bad fa ith in reg ard to the proffe r agree ment. It is evident that the attorney s for the g overnme nt interprete d that agree ment differ ently from the wa

y that the district court a

nd this Court have interpre ted it. Their diffe rent interpr etation, howeve r, does make it more likely

that the agree ment was violated, a lbeit not in bad faith. Ba d faith is not require d for a

violation of the proff

er a gree ment.

147ag ai ns t Re ct or , is ne ces sa ry forth e d is tri ctco urt t o d et erm in e whe th er the go ve rn m en t h as carr ie d i ts bu rd enof p ro vi ng th atth ere was no de riv at iv e u se . The di stric t co urt d idfin d, al te rn at iv el y , th atan y vi ol at io n o f th e p ro ffer ag reem en t was ha rm le ss be y on d areas on ab le do ub t. Tha t fi nd in g was pre m is ed , ho wev er, o n t he mis ta ke n b el ie f th atth e d eri va ti ve us e in qu iry was li m it edto th e ev id en ce t o wh ic h R ect orha d o bjec te d. No rel iabl e h arm le ss ne ss de te rm in at io n can be m ad e u nt il a fu ll ev id en ti ary he ari ng is co nduc te d i nt o the de riv at iv e u se is su e as to all of t he ev id en ce u se d a ga in stRect or . Onl y aft er tha t h eari ng wil l t he di st ric t co urt b e ab le to rel iabl y de te rm in e whi ch ev id en ce the go ve rn m en t h as fai le d t o s ho w was o bt ai ne d i nd ep en de nt ly andwhet he r th e ad m is si on of t ha t ev id en ce was ha rm le ss . W e rea li ze tha t the ev id en ti ary he ari ng wil l b e a b ur de n o n t he di st ric t co urt
an d t he att orne y s fo r bo th si de s, b utth atis whatth e la w requi res un de r th e pa rti cu la r ci rcu m st an ces of t hi s ca se . W e wil l v acat e th e d is tri ctco urt’s o rd er 3 7 de nyin g R ect or ’s m ot io n t o d is m is s t he co un ts onwhi ch he ha d b eenco nv ic te d
an d wi ll rem an d h is cas e fo r fu rth er p ro ceed in gs co ns is te ntwith t hi s o pi ni on . By stating that the law “r equire s” an e videntiary hearing, w e do not mean to imply that 3 7 the par ties are prec luded from avoiding the ne cessity for that he aringand fur

ther proc eeding s by settling the c ase. B efor e we order ed him rele ased pe nding this appe al, Rector ha d alre ady serve d approximately

three year s of his 84-month sentence and it may be that the pa

rties ca n neg otiate a plea ba rg ain at this stag e of the case . We are not rec ommending that to the parties but mention the possibilit y

of it only to make it clea

r that our de cision does not prec lude it. 148XI. Sen te nc in g Is su es

Hil l, Fa rm er, an d Lau de rm il l ch al le ng e th ei r se nt en ces on bo th pro cedur al
an d s ub st an ti ve gro un ds
. W e rev ie w sen te nc in g d eci si on s o nl y for anab us e o f 3 8 di sc ret io n, u si ng a two -s te p p ro ces s. Uni te d S ta te s v . Shaw, 56 0 F .3d12 30 , 12 37 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 9) ; s ee al so Uni te d S ta te s v . Irey, 61 2 F .3d11 60 , 12 45 –4 9 (1 1t h C ir. 20 10 ) (en ba nc ). Fir st , we rev ie w th e se nt en ci ng de ci si on to “ en su re tha t t he di st ric t co urt co m

m it te d n o s ig ni fic an t p ro cedur al erro r, su chas f ai li ng to cal cu la te (o r im pr op erl y cal cu la ti ng ) th e Gui de li ne s ra ng e, tr eat in g the Gui de li ne s as m an da to ry , fai li ng to co ns id er the § 3 55 3( a) fa ct or s, s el ect in g asen te nc e b as edon cl earl y erro ne ou s fa ct s, o r fai li ng to ad equa te ly exp la in th e ch os ensen te nc e — in cl ud in g a n e xp la na ti on for an y de vi at io n fr om

th e Gui de li ne s rang e.” Gal l v
. Uni te d S ta te s, 5 52 U.S. 38 , 51 , 12 8 S .Ct. 5 86 , 59 7 (2 00 7) ; Sh aw, 56 0 F .3dat 12 37 . If we co nc lu de th atth e se nt en ce was pro cedur al ly reaso nabl e, we th en pr oc eedto th e se co ndst ep to de te rm in e whe th er i t was subs ta nt iv el y reas on ab le
un de r th e to ta li ty of th e ci rcu m st an ces . Sha w, 56 0 F .3dat 1 23 7. The only sentenc ing- related claim that David Thomas raises is that his counsel wa s 3 8 ineffe ctive at se ntencingfor f ailing to r equest a

reduc tion of his guidelines of fenselevel for acc eptanc e of r esponsibility , notwithstanding the f act that he pleade d not guilty and we nt to trial. “We will not ge nera lly

consider c laims of ineffe ctive assistanc e of c ounsel raise d on direc t appea l where the district court did not enter tain the claim nor de velop a f actua l rec ord. I f the rec ord is sufficie ntly

develope d, howeve r, this court will consider a n ineffe ctive assistanc e of counsel c laim on direct a

ppeal.” United States v. Be nder, 290 F .3d 1279, 1284 (11th Cir. 2002) (citations omitted); see a lso United States v. Mill wood, 961 F.2d 194, 195 ( 11th Cir. 1992) (dec lining to consider

ineffe ctive assistanc e of c ounsel claim on direc t appea l from def endant’ s sentenc e). The rec ord is not sufficiently develope d for us to dec ide this claim. 149A. The Pro cedur al Reas on ab le ne ss Cla im s

1. Al le ge d M an da to ry

Pres um pt io n i n F av orof t he Gui de li ne s Hil l, Lau de rm il l, an d F arm er co nt en d t ha t t he ir s en te nc es are p ro cedur al ly
un reas on ab le be cau se th e d is tri ctco urt ap pl ie d apre su m pt io n i n fa vo r of

th e ran ge of sen te nc es reco m

m en de d b y

th e g ui de li ne s. Th ey

ba se th ei r co nt en ti on no t ju st on co m m en ts at s en te nc in g i n t hi s ca se in 20 07 bu t al so on th e sa m e jud ge ’s
rem ark s i n t hr ee unr el at edcas es fro m 20 05 th atpu rp orte dl y

in di cat e h e co ns id ered th e g ui de li ne s ei th er b in di ng or p res um pt iv el y reas on ab le , con trary

to th e Supr em e Co urt’s h ol di ng in Uni te d S ta te s v . Boo ke r, 54 3 U.S. 2 20 , 12 5 S .Ct. 7 38 (20 05 ), as de ve lo pe d i n R it a v . Uni te d S ta te s, 5 51 U.S. 33 8, 1 27 S.Ct . 24 56 (20 07 ). Acco rd in g t o t he se th ree app el la nt s, i t was th e jud ge ’s po li cy to im po se a se nt en ce wit hi n t he gu id el in es ran ge un le ss th ere wer e u nu su al cir cu m st an ces th atwou ld
res ul t i n fu nd am en ta l u nf ai rn es s ap pr oa ch in g am is carr ia ge of ju st ic e.

“ A sen te nc e m ay

be un reas on ab le if i t i s the pro du ctof apro cedur e th at do es no t fo ll ow Bo ok er’s requi rem en ts , reg ard le ss of t he actua l s en te nc e.” Uni te d St at es v. Hu nt , 45 9 F .3d11 80 , 11 82 n.3 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ). Whi le itis pe rm is si bl e fo r ap pe ll at e co urts to ap pl y a pr es um pt io n o f rea so nabl en es s t o asen te nc e wit hi n a p ro pe rly calc ul at edgu id el in es ran ge , “ th e se nt en ci ng co urt d oe s n oten joy th e be ne fitof aleg al pre su m pt io n t ha t t he Gui de li ne s s en te nc e sh ou ldap pl y .” Rit a,

15055 1 U.S. at35 1, 1 27 S.Ct . at 2 46 5. If adi st ric t co urt ap pl ie s t he gu id el in es as

th ou gh th ey

were m an da to ry

or t reat s t he ran ge as p res um pt iv el y reas on ab le , th at is pro cedur al erro r. Hil l ar gu es th atth e d is tri ctco urt “ sl av is hl y ” adhe redto th e g ui de li ne s i n arri vi ng at h is sen te nc e. He cla im s t ha t t he jud ge ha s a p at te rnof s en te nc in g de fen da nt s t o aterm

of i m pr is on m en t wi th in th e ad vi so ry gu id el in es ran ge . Thata jud ge im po se s s en te nc es withi n t he gu id el in es ran ge in m os t ca se s i s n ota cau se fo r co nc ern . W e supp os e th atcanbe sai d o f m an y jud ge s. Nei th er 1 8 U.S.C. § 35 53 no r Bo ok er es tabl is he s a quo taof s en te nc es ou ts id e th e g ui de li ne s ra ng e. Hil l d oe s n ot , andin vi ew of th e se nt en ces im

po se d o n s om e o f hi s co de fen da nt s ca nn ot , ass ertth atth e d is tri ctco urt ju dg e in th is cas e n ev er v ari es fro m th e g ui de li ne s ra ng e o r on ly rarely do es so . Of th e el ev ensen te nc es he im po se d a s a res ul t o f th is m ortg ag e fraudsch em e, th ree wer e o ut si de th e g ui de li ne s ra ng e — on e was ab ov e itan d t wo wer e b el ow i t. Face d wi th th atfactab ou t t he sen te nc es im po se d i n t hi s an d t he rel at edcas e of Ril ey Grah am fro m

lat e 2 00 7 t hr ou gh earl y

20 08 , Hil l ci te s co m

m en ts of t he 3 9 di st ric t co urt ju dg e fro m

sen te nc e p ro ceed in gs in earl ie r, un rel at edcas es . Firs t, i n Uni te d S ta te s v . Bat tl e, No. 0 4- CR-0 00 76 , at 5 1 (N.D. Ga. Apr il 1, 2 00 5)
See supra , n.4. 3 9 151(tr an sc rip t o f se nt en ci ng pro ceed in gs ), th e jud ge sai d t o t he de fen da ntat t he

se nt en ci ng he ari ng in Apri l o f 20 05 :

W el l, as I’ve sa id be fo re, m y read i ng of Bo ok er is th at th e gu id el in es rem ai n a n i mp o rtant fact or in de ci di ng th e se nt en ce in a cri m in al cas e, an d th at a no n- gu id el in e se nt en ce is o n ly t o be im po se d in un us ua l ci rcu ms t a n ces whe re th e st ru ctur e of th e gu id el in es or th e se nt en ci ng ran ge pr oduc ed by th e gu id el in es pr oduc es a fu nd am en ta ll y un fai r res ul t. Id
. The n, i n M ay

20 05 , th e sa m e jud ge rem ark edat ano th er s en te nc in g h eari ng : W el l as I’ve sa id m an y ti m es b y no w, th e gu id el in es br in g a m eas ur e of co n s is te nc y an d fai rn es s to se nt en ci ng , an d it ’s jus t fu nd am en ta ll y un fai r fo r a de fen dant to ge t a se nt en ce of 15 1 m on th s in m y co urtro om an d th en ge t a s e n t e n c e of pr ob at io n in th e ne xt co urtro om , an d th e on ly way th at co ns is te nc y is go in g to be ach ie ve d in fed eral se nt en ci ng is to fo ll ow th e g u i d el in es , ex cep t in ex tra or di na ry c a s es whe re th ere’s so m e fu nd am en ta l un fai rn es s in he ren t in t h e st ru ctur e o f th e g ui de li ne s o r in th ei r ap pl ic at io n t o apa rti cu la r cas e. The on e no n- gu id el in e se nt en ce th at I ha ve im po se d was a res ul t of th atwher e, be cau se of aqu irk in th e way th e cas e was in di ct ed , two in di vi du al s who en ga ge d in ex act ly th e sa m e co nduc t a n d who ha d ex act ly th e sa m e ba ck gr ou nd , ex act ly th e sa m e cri m in al reco rd , weren ’t tre at edth e sa m e; th ey

were treat eddra m at ic al ly diff eren tl y . Uni te d S ta te s v . Hou se , No. 0 2- CR-0 07 45 , at 11 2– 13 (N.D. Ga. May 10 , 20 05 ) (tr an sc rip t o f se nt en ci ng pro ceed in g)
. Fi na ll y , th e d is tri ctco urt m ad e th e fo ll owi ng rem ark s atth e se nt en ci ng of
an ot he r de fen da ntin th e Hou se cas e, al so in May 200 5: “ As I’ve sai d i n o th er cas es , inord er t o i m

po se a no n- gu id el in e se nt en ce, I b el ie ve th ere m us t b e so m e 152fu nd am en ta l u nf ai rn es s ap pr oa ch in g am is carr ia ge of ju st ic e . . . .” Unit edSta te s v. Ho us e, No. 0 2- CR-0 07 45 , at 2 7 (N.D. Ga. Ma y 16 , 20 05 ) (tran sc rip t o f
se nt en ci ng pro ceed in g) . Butth e jud ge als o s ta te d i n t ha t ca se th atfol lo win g Bo ok er h e tr eat edth e g ui de li ne s as advi so ry , no t m an da to ry . Id. The st at em en ts fro m

th e th ree e arl ie r cas es are p ro bl em at ic . Howev er, tho se st at em en ts were n otm ad e atsen te nc in g i n a ny of th e cas es be fo re u s i n t hi s ap pe al . They were m ad e in Apri l an d M ay of 2 00 5, o nl y

m on th s af

te r Bo ok er was de ci de d i n J anua ry

of t ha t year, anda fu ll two y ears be fo re the Rit a d eci si onwas is su ed . By

th e ti m e th atth es e d efen dant s wer e se nt en cedtwo y ears lat er, the po st Bo ok er s en te nc in g l aw on th is po in t h adbe encla rif ie d b y th e Ri tade ci si on . The di stric t co urt s ai d n ot hi ng in th is cas e in di cat in g alac k o f aware ne ss of th e Ri tade ci si on or s ug ge st in g t ha t i t was tre at in g t he gu id el in es as a nyth in g o th er th anadvi so ry . As Farm er p oi nt s o ut , th e co urt d idin vi te th e at to rn ey foreach de fen da ntto ad dr es s t he is su e o f whe th er i t s ho ul d i m po se a se nt en ce wi th in th e advi so ry gu id el in es ran ge or o ut si de th e ran ge , bu t t he re i s n ot hi ng wron g wi th th at . It i s a que st io n e ve ry sen te nc in g ju dg e fac es in vi rtu al ly every case , and
as ki ng th e que st io n a ctua ll y in di cat es th atth e jud ge ful ly und ers ta nd s t ha t the gu id el in es ran ge is on ly adv is ory .

153Lau de rm il l p oi nt s t o asi ng le st at em en t t he co urt m ad e dur in g h er s en te nc e

he ari ng . The co urt s ai d t o h er co un se l: “ W el l, Mr . Rows ey , if I co ul d g iv e y ou r cl ie ntan y m or e b reak s t ha n I a lre ady ha ve withi n t he gu id el in es an d u nd er the law, I wou lddo it
. . . . ButI th in k I h av e g iv eny ou r cl ie ntev ery br eakI can gi ve he r.” W e d o n otreadth atas a nyth in g m or e th ananin di cat io n t ha t t he co urt fe ltitha d cal cu la te d t he gu id el in es co rrec tl y an d h adcare fu ll y

co ns id eredall of the no ngu id el in es fact or s “ un de r th e la w,” th atlaw b ei ng 18 U.S.C. § 3 55 3. Th e co urt be li ev editha d b een as l en ie ntwith Lau de rm il l as itco ul d ju st ify bei ng . Fo r al l o f th es e rea so ns we are unp ers ua de d b y th e co nt en ti on of Hi ll , Lau de rm il l, an d F arm er tha t the di st ric t co urt t reat edth e g ui de li ne s i n am an ne r th atwas i nc on si st en t wi th th e Bo ok er an d R it a d eci si on s. Th e d is tri ctco urt pr op erl y co ns id eredth e § 35 53 (a) fa ct or s as well as t he gu id el in es ran ge , itva rie d up wardor d own wardwher e itth ou gh t t he cir cum st an ces jus ti fie d d oi ng so , andit ga ve well -rea so ne d e xp lana ti on s fo r eac h o f it s s en te nc in g d eci si on s.

2. Lau de rm il l’s Se parat e Co nt en ti on s Lau de rm il l al so co nt en ds th athe r se nt en ce was pro cedur al ly unr eas on ab le fo r th ree r eas on s s pe ci fic to he r. Fir st , sh e arg ue s t ha t the di st ric t co urt erredby ap pl y in g t he 20 01 ve rs io n o f th e se nt en ci ng gu id el in es . Accor di ng to Laud erm il l, th e co urt s ho ul d h av e ap pl ie d the 20 00 ve rs io n o f th e g ui de li ne s b ecau se th e la st 154co nduc t fo r whi chsh e was co nv ic te d o ccu rredno lat er tha n Au gu stof 2 00 1. Th at

is no t s o. Lau de rm il l was co nv ic te d o f a co ns pi racy tha t ex te nd edwell be y on d t he effe ct iv e d at e o f th e 2 00 1 e di ti onof t he gu id el in es . See U.S.S.G. §1 B1 .3(a )(1 )(B)
. As the pre se nt en ce re po rt n ot ed , eve n s om e o f Lau de rm il l’s o wn co nduc t i n fu rth eran ce o f th e co ns pi racy occu rredaft er Au gu st20 01 . The d is tri ctco urt ap pl ie d t he co rrec t v ers io n o f th e g ui de li ne s. Seco nd , Laud erm il l cl ai m s t ha t h er g ui de li ne s ra ng e was im pr op erl y cal cu la te d b ecau se th e lo ss am ou ntatt rib ut edto he r sh ou ldno t h av e ex ceed ed $2 00 ,00 0. We di sa gr ee. The di st ric t co urt p ro pe rly app li eda 20 -le ve l ad jus tm en t fo r a l os s o f m or e th an$7 ,00 0,0 00 bu t l es s t ha n $ 20 ,00 0,0 00 be cau se Laud erm il l
was acco un tabl e fo r a l os s o f $9 ,02 7,9 33 du e to he r in vo lv em en t i n t he co ns pi racy. U.S.S.G. § 2 B1 .1(b )(1 )(K) (2 00 1) ; U.S.S.G. § 1B 1.3
. Fi na ll y , Laud erm il l ar gu es th atth e d is tri ctco urt s ho ul d n othave ap pl ie d a n en ha nc em en t fo r m on ey

lau nd eri ng un de r § 2 S1 .1 b ecau se sh e h adno in te ntto co nc eal he r sh are o f th e p ro ceed s fr om th e rea l es ta te clo si ng s. Th ere was ev id en ce tha t Lau de rm il l i nt en ti on al ly con ceal edth e so ur ce o f he r pr oc eed s. Th e se nt en ci ng co urt co ul d, an d app aren tl y di d, fi ndsh e was aware t ha t p aym en ts to st raw b uyers an d re cru it ers su ch as h ers el f were c on ceal edfro m th e le nd ers th ro ug h s id e d eal s b etweenHil l an d t he st raw b uyers. Th eref or e, a two -le ve l 155en ha nc em en t was ap pr op ria te ba se d o n h er co nv ic ti on un de r 18 U.S.C. §

19 56 (a)( 1) (B)( i). Se e U.S.S.G. § 2 S1 .1(b )(2 )(B) (20 01 ). Even if t he re were no ev id en ce tha t Lau de rm il l i nt en de d t o c on ceal th e m on ey sh e m ad e fro m

th e frau du le nttrans act io ns , th e en ha nc em en t u nd er § 2S 1.1 (b )(2 )(B) wou ldst il l h av e be enap pr op ria te be cau se sh e was co nv ic te d u nd er 1 8 U.S.C. § 19 56 (a)( 1) (A)(i i) fo r m on ey

lau nd eri ng with the in te ntto pro m ot e th e il le ga l en te rp ris e. Lau de rm il l h as no t co nv in cedus th atth ere was any pro cedur al erro r in th e im po si ti on of h er s en te nc e.

B. Subs ta nt iv e Rea so nabl en es s Farm er, Lau de rm il l, an d Hi ll co nt en d t ha t t he ir s en te nc es are s ub st an ti ve ly
un reas on ab le
. 1. Fa rm er Farm er ar gu es th athi s 1 27 -m on th sen te nc e, whi ch was n ear t he lo w endof hi s g ui de li ne s ra ng e o f 12 1 t o 1 51 m on th s, was subs ta nt iv el y un reas on ab le be cau se itwas g reat er tha n n eces sa ry to co m pl y with t he go al s o f se nt en ci ng . The di st ric t co urt d en ie d F arm er’s reque stfora be lo w-g ui de li ne s s en te nc e aft er n ot in g th e p res en ce o f se ve ral ag gr av at in g fa ct or s, i nc lu di ng : the m ag ni tu de of t he frau du le ntsch em e; th e co st s b orne by the go ve rn m en t, the vi ct im len de rs , andth e ta xp ay ers ; an d F arm er’s l ackof r em or se as we ll as h is so ph is ti cat edba ck gr ou ndin 156th e m ortg ag e in du st ry . Desp it e th os e fac to rs cal li ng fora hi gh er s en te nc e, th e

co urt s en te nc edFarm er t o ju st6 m on th s ab ov e th e b ot to m of h is gu id el in es ran ge . It ju st ifi edth atlen ie nc y

onth e g ro un d t ha t Fa rm er h adjoi ne d i n s om e st ip ul at io ns th athe lp edm ov e th in gs alo ng at t ria l an d b ecau se th e co urt t ho ug htth e se nt en ce was co ns is te ntwith t he § 3 55 3( a) fa ct or s. Giv enall of t he ag gr av at in g ci rcu m st an ces , itbo rd ers on th e fri vo lo us to arg ue th atFarm er’s s en te nc e n ear t he lo w endof t he advi so ry

gu id el in es was u nr eas on ab le
.

2. Lau de rm il l Lau de rm il l, wh o s erv edth e co ns pi racy by recrui ti ng st raw b uyers, ar gu es th athe r 87 -m on th sen te nc e, whi ch was a t t he bo tt om of t he 87 to 10 8 m on th s gu id el in es ran ge , was s ub st an ti ve ly unr eas on ab le be cau se : the st raw b uyers s he
recrui te d wer e equa ll y

or m or e b la m ewo rth y

th ansh e b utwere n otpro se cu te d; he r co nv ic ti on s wer e n otwithi n t he “ he art la nd ” o f m on ey lau nd eri ng cas es ; an d t he di st ric t co urt d idno t g iv e en ou gh weig htto he r li m it edin vo lv em en t i n the sch em e. The go ve rn m en t’s d eci si on to pro se cu te Laud erm il l b utno ne of t ho se who
were m erel y

straw b uyers d oe s n otren de r he r se nt en ce u nr eas on ab le . Whe th er the st raw b uyers wer e v ic ti m s o r un ch arg edco -co ns pi rat or s i s i rrel ev an t t o t he
reas on ab le ne ss of Lau de rm il l’s s en te nc e.

157Lau de rm il l’s o ut si de -th e-h eart la ndarg um en t i s tha t m on ey lau nd eri ng is
us ua ll y ass oc ia te d wi th org an iz edcri m e an d dru g t raff ic ki ng , whi chis why th e gu id el in es lea d t o s uc h h ars h s en te nc es forth e cri m e. Sh e rea so ns th atbe cau se sh e was no t co nv ic te d o f drug tra ffi ck in g o r or ga ni zedcri m e — n otin th e u su al , La Co saNos trasen se , eve n t ho ug h s he was p artof awell -o rg an iz edcri m in al
sc he m e — s he ou gh t t o b e g iv ena sp eci al bre akat s en te nc in g. Lau de rm il l, th ou gh , was fo un d g ui lt y of m on ey

lau nd eri ng un de r 18 U.S.C. § 1 95 6, wh ic h pl ai nl y en co m pa ss es he r co nduc t as pa rt o f Hil l’s m ortg ag e fraudsch em e, an d s he
was sen te nc edacco rd in gl y . She go t a h eart la ndsen te nc e fo r a h eart la ndcri m e. Lau de rm il l’s fi na l ar gu m en t i s t ha t t he di stric t co urt fa il edto ad equa te ly
co ns id er the na tu re an d c on se qu en ces of h er o ffen se s an d h er m in orrol e inth e co ns pi racy. The reco rdof t he sen te nc in g p ro ceed in g d oe s n otsupp ort h er arg um en t. Aft er ac kn owl ed gi ng th atth e g ov ern m en t was co rrec t i n a rg ui ng th at Lau de rm il l p lay edanin te gr al an d a ct iv e ro le in th e m ortg ag e fraudco ns pi racy, the di st ric t co urt wen t o n t o n ot e th atso m e le ni en cy was i n o rd er b ecau se sh e h ad ag reedto reas on ab le st ip ul at io ns at t ria l an d b ecau se , com pa redto ot he r de fen da nt s, Lau de rm il l d es erv eda sm al le r sh are o f th e b lam e. As the di stric t co urt ex pl ai ne d: [I]n pe rh ap s th e or di na ry cas e an d ev en in an othe r m ortg ag e frau d cas e we wou ld n’t c h a ract eri ze [Lau de rm il l] as a m in or pa rti ci pa nt . Bu t 158co m

pa red to Ph il li p Hil l an d co m pa red to th e p r o f

e s si on al s th at were in vo lv ed , th e ap pr a i s e r s , th e la wy ers , th e br ok ers , I th in k gi vi ng he r a do wnwar d ad

jus tm en t fo r m in or ro le w h e n h e r gu id el in e of fen se s are dr iv enno t b y

whatsh e p ro fit ed in th e sc he m e bu t by th e to ta l am ou nt s of th e lo an s and th e m on ey th at were laund ered , it se em s to m e th e fai r way to ba la nc e th o se two is to gi ve he r th e m in or ro le ad jus tm en t an d de pa rt downw ard on cri m in al hi st ory be cau se of ov erre pr es entatio n from Le v el Thre e to Lev el Two an d gi ve a se nt en ce at th e lo w en d o f t h e gu id el in e ran ge . Tha t se em s to m e to be th e fai r th in g to do un de r al l th e ci rcu m st an ces of thi s ca se . W it ho utth e d own wardad jus tm en ts forpl ay in g am in orrol e an d fo r an ov erre pr es en te d c riminal hi st ory , Laud erm il l’s g ui de li ne s rang e wou ldha ve be en 12 1– 15 1 m on th s. Th ro ug h t ho se ad jus tm en ts , ho wev er, the co urt re du cedhe r gu id el in es ran ge to 87 –1 08 m on th s, an d t he n s en te nc edhe r to th e v ery bo tt om of th atlo wer ran ge . Her sen te nc e was no t s ub st an ti ve ly unr eas on ab le
. 3. Hi ll Hil l ar gu es th atth e d is tri ctco urt’s treat m en t o f th e g ui de li ne s as pr es um pt iv el y reas on ab le leditto im

po se a subs ta nt iv el y

un reas on ab le sen te nc e th atvi ol at es th e “pa rs im on y pro vi si on ” o f 18 U.S.C. § 3 55 3( a), wh ic h d ire ct s co urts to im

po se a se nt en ce tha t i s “ ‘suf fic ie nt , bu t n otgre at er tha n n eces sa ry ’ to acco m pl is h t he go al s o f se nt en ci ng .” Kim br ou gh v. Un it edSta te s, 5 52 U.S. 85 , 10 1, 1 28 S.Ct . 55 8, 5 70 (20 07 ); 1 8 U.S.C. § 35 53 (a). Acco rd in g t o Hi ll , th e co urt arri ve d a t a s en te nc e th atwas “ un ne ces sa ril y ha rs h” by focu si ng on th e ran ge of

159se nt en ces reco m m en de d b y

th e g ui de li ne s af

te r cal cu la ti ng th e m

yria d o f
en ha nc em en ts th atwere ap pl ic ab le to hi s ca se . W e h av e rec en tl y

reco gn iz edth atwhatso m e cal l t he “pars im on y pri nc ip le ,”
ex pr es se d i n § 35 53 (a), ac tu al ly requ ire s “ th ata se nt en ci ng co urt wh enhand in g do wn a s en te nc e b e st in gy eno ug h t o a vo idon e th atis to o l on g, b utals o t ha t i t b e ge ne ro us en ou gh to av oi d o ne th atis to o s ho rt.” Uni te d S ta te s v . Irey, 61 2 F .3d 11 60 , 11 97 (20 10 ) (en ba nc ). Thi s “ Gol di lo ck s p rin ci pl e,” as itha s al so be en cal le d, d ire ct s t he di st ric t co urt t o i m po se a se nt en ce tha t i s “

jus t ri gh t t o s erv e th e pu rp os es of § 35 53 (a).” Id. Init s en de av or

to arri ve at asen te nc e th atwas ju strig htforHil l, the di st ric t co urt n ot edth at“ [t]he re ar e a num be r of ag gr av at in g fa ct or s t ha t wei gh in fav or no t o nl y of asen te nc e withi n t he gu id el in e ran ge bu t a s en te nc e atth e v ery to p o f th e g ui de li ne ran ge .” The c ou rt o bs erv edth at : (1 ) th e am ou ntof l os s was no t fu ll y tak enin to acco un t i n c al cu la ti ng th e g ui de li ne ran ge ; (2 ) m ortg ag e fraudis a se rio us cri m e an d t he ba nk s t ha t l os t t he m on ey are n otth e o nl y

vi ct im s o f it ; (3 )
m ortg ag e fraudaffe ct s i nn oc en t i nd iv idua ls who li ve ne xtto for ecl os edpro pe rti es ; (4 ) m an y of t he un wit ti ng st raw b uyers h adth ei r cre di t ru in edan d wer e fo rcedto de cl are b an krup tc y ; (5 ) Hil l em pl oyed h is co -d efen da nt s, m an y of wh om ha d n o cri m in al hi st ory , to ass is t h im inhi s fr au d, ev en tu al ly sub jecti ng th em

to lo ng 160pr is on sen te nc es ; (6 ) Hil l h ada hi st ory of f rau d, as he ha d p rev io us ly perp etrat eda si m il ar s ch em e inCarr ol l Co un ty befo re m ov in g o n t o At la nt a; an d (7 ) Hil l
co nt in ue d h is sch em e lo ng aft er h e was aware t ha t h e was un de r in ve st ig at io n. Insp it e o f al l tho se ag gr av at in g fa ct or s, the co urt s ti ll ch os e n otto sen te nc e Hil l ator n ear t he to p o f hi s g ui de li ne s ra ng e. It re ward edhi m with l en ie nc y

for reduc in g t he co stto th e p ub li c o f th e tr ia l b y ag reei ng to reas on ab le an d ap pr op ria te st ip ul at io ns . Neverth el es s, the co urt d eci de d tha t i t co ul d n otin go od
co ns ci en ce s en te nc e Hil l t o t he sh orte stsen te nc e rec omm en de d b y th e g ui de li ne s

“ gi ve n t he ag gr av at in g c irc um st an ces an d t he en orm it y of t he lo ss es .” The c ou rt th enim po se d asen te nc e o f 33 6 m on th s, wh ic h was clo se r to th e b ot to m of t he 32 4– 40 5 m on th s g ui de li ne s ra ng e th anitwas t o the to p. Th e co urt’s b al an ci ng of th e § 35 53 (a) fa ct or s an d a ll of t he cir cu m st an ces fal ls well withi n t he pa ram et ers of § 3 55 3( a), an d Hi ll ’s withi n- gu id el in es sen te nc e is ne ithe r to o h ars h n orto o le ni en t. Fi na ll y , Hil l ar gu es th athi s s en te nc e is un reas on ab le be cau se itva rie s gr eat ly from

th e se nt en ces of h is co -d efen da nt s an d t he sen te nc es of o th er h ig hpr of il e fraudde fen da nt s n at io nwi de . Firs t, Hi ll ’s co- de fen da nt s wh o re cei ve d
m uc h m or e le ni en t s en te nc es were n otlea de rs in th e co ns pi racy; he was t he lea de r, th e k in gp in who orc he st rat edth e who le th in g. With ou t Hi ll th ere wo ul d h av e 161be enno co ns pi racy, no m as si ve am ou ntof m ortg ag e fraudres ul ti ng fro m it , and
no rui ne d l iv es in th e wak e o f it . He bo re the gre at es t re sp on si bi li ty for the
m as si ve cri m e an d d es erv edth e lo ng es t s en te nc e. Altho ug h “ th e n eedto av oi d
un warra nt edsen te nc e d is pa rit ie s” is a fact orto be co ns id eredinsen te nc in g, s ee § 35 53 (a)( 6) , th ere i s n o u nwa rran te d d is pa rit y be twee n Hi ll ’s sen te nc e an d t ho se of hi s co -d efen dant s. As fo r Hil l’s ar gu m en t tha t t he re was anun warrant eddi sp ari ty betweenhi s se nt en ce an d o th ers who ha ve be enco nv ic te d o f si m il ar fraudcri m es els ewh ere i n th e n at io n, t ha t wo ul d b e d iff ic ul t t o g au ge . Andwe are n otco nv in cedth ata se nt en ce i m

po se d i n t hi s ci rcu itis subjec t t o ana ti on al gra de cu rv e. Inan y ev en t, th e Supr em e Co urt h as in st ru ct edus th atth e “ av oi da nc e o f un warra nt eddi sp ari ti es was cle arl y

co ns id eredby the Sen te nc in g C omm is si on when set ti ng th e Gui de li ne s ran ge s. Si nc e th e Dis tri ctJu dg e co rrec tl y cal cu la te d andcare fu ll y

rev ie wedth e Gui de li ne s ra ng e, he ne ces saril y ga ve si gn ifi can t wei gh t an d c on si de rat io n t o t he
ne edto av oi d u nwa rran te d d is pa rit ie s.” Gal l, 5 52 U.S. at 5 4, 1 28 S.Ct . at 5 99
. The same is tru e h ere. As we n ot edat t he be gi nn in g o f th is op in io n, Hi ll pu t i n p la ce an d ra n a m as si ve co ns pi racy inv ol vi ng $1 10 m il li on of f rau du le ntlo an s, al m os t al l o f whi chwentin to de fau ltcau si ng m or e th an$3 8 m il li on in di rectlo ss es to len de rs . 162The pe op le Hil l u se d i n h is cri m in al sch em e su ffer edgre at ly, an d the eco no m ic

pa in he in fli ct edto sat is fy hi s o wn g reedwas fe ltby cou nt le ss ho m eo wne rs in
ne ig hb orho od s wh ere t he for ecl os ur es th atwere a b y -p ro du ctof the sch em e reduc edpro pe rty val ue s. His sen te nc e o f 33 6 m on th s i s n otsubs ta nt iv el y un reas on ab le
. XII. Co nc lu si on W e AFFIR M al l o f th e co nv ic ti on s an d s en te nc es of a ll of t he ap pe ll an ts in al l re sp ect s, ex cep t tha t we VACATE th e d is tri ctco urt’s o rd er d en y in g R ect or ’s
m ot io n t o d is m is s, wh ic h a ss ert edas i ts gro un d t ha t t he go ve rn m en t h adbre ach ed th e p ro fferag reem en t; as t o t ha t m ot io n, we REM AND Rect or ’s cas e fo r fu rth er pr oc eed in gs co ns is te ntwith t hi s o pi ni on . AFFIR MED IN PART, VACATED IN PART, andREMANDED.

163