The H onorab le Ro bert M

. D ow , J r. , Un it ed Stat es D is tr ic t  J udge f or the N or the rnD i s t ri c tofI l l i noi s , s i t t i ng by des i gna t i on.



## In the 

# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it

N o. 07

- 2729 U NI T ED S TATE SOF A MERI CA, P la intif f-A pp ellee, v. G REG O RY A. B ARN HA RT, D ef endant-Appellant.

A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the C entral D istricto f Illino is. No . 05- CR-20018

—Mi ch ael P . M cC us key, Chief Ju dge
.
A RGUED F EB RU AR Y 9, 2009

— D ECI DE D M AR CH 26, 2010

B efor e P O SNER an d S YKES, C ircu it Judges , a nd D OW, D i s t r i ctJudg e .  S YKES, Cir cu i tJudg e . A jury c onv icted Gre gory B arn ha rt on t wo c o unt s o fwi r e f r au d

— o ne i nv o l v i ng a f r a ud o n a f o r m ere m pl o y era nd the o th eri nv o l vinga fr au dul en t sc h e me t o o b t a i n a $ 5 0 0 , 0 0 0 l o a n f r o m S u n T r u stBa nk2 N o. 07

- 2729

se cur ed b y E. I

. du P o ntde Nem o ur s an d Co m pan y (“D u P on t” ). B ar n h ar t a rg u es th at w e s h ou ld rev e rs e h is co nv i ct i o ns f or tw o r ea so ns . F i r st, he c o nt en ds th atthe d ist ric t jud ge ’s q u es tio n in g of w itn es se s d u ri n g h is tr i aldi spl aye d an i napp ro pri ate bi as i n f avo r of the g over n m en t. Se c on d , h e arg u es th at th e g ov er n m en t p rej u d ic ially “p ar ad ed ” b efo re th e jur y t h e fa c tu al d et ails of h is pri or convi cti ons f or theft and dece pti ve p ra c ti ces. Barnha rt a l so c ha l l en g es hi s se nt en ce , c l ai m i ngtha t th e dist ri ct j ud ge i m proper l y c al cul ated the am ount o fl oss and err ed by or deri ng hi m to pay re sti tutio n b ased on re l evantco nd uct. W e a gr ee that the j ud ge’ s quest i oni ng o fthe w i tness es du ring thi s t ri alwent too fa r, b ut i t di d not prej ud i ce Barnha r t’ s su bs ta nt i alr i g ht s g i ve n the o ve r whel m i ng ev id en c e o f h is gu ilt. B ar n h ar t’s “p ar ad in g” arg u m en t is me r i t l e s s , a s i s h i s c o n t e n t i o n th a t th e d i s t r i c t c o u r t i mp rop erly calcu lated the am ou nt o f loss. W e the refore af f i r m h i s c o n v i c t i o n a n d s e n t e n c e . O n th e l i mi t e d i s s ue o f r es ti tu ti o n, ho wev er, a r emand i s i n o r der ; the g o ve r nm en t c on cedes that the di str i ct c ourtsho uld nothave o r der ed r es ti tu ti o n b as ed o n r el ev an t co nduc t, a nd w e a gr ee.

I . B a c kg r o und A. Th e F r a uds I n the s pr i ngo f2 00 3, Ba r nha r t appr o ac he d Pa ulTa tman, ow ne r of T atm an ’s C oll isi on R ep air C en ters (“Ta tm an ’s”), t o di s c us s the p o s s ib i l i t y o fp ur c ha s i ngthe b us i ne s s.N o. 07

- 2729 3 Bar n h a r t wa s u n a b l e t o r a i s e th e n e c e s s a r y c a p i t a l f o r t he ac qui si ti o n, ho wev er, s o Pa ulTa tman i ns te ad br ou ght h i m i n t o th e b u s i n e s s a s a n e mpl o y e e t o i mpl e me nt i m pr o ve d s y st ems a nd pr o ce dur es a t th e com pan y ’ s f o ur coll isi on-rep air service cen ters. T atm an ’s i ssu e d Ba rnh art a co r p o rate cred it card be cau se th e j ob req uired Ba rnh art to tr avelbetw een these fou r l oca ti ons, wh i ch w er e s catter ed thr oughout centr alI l l i noi s. I n Se ptem ber 2003 , after Barnharth ad been w or ki ng atTatm an’ s fora few m onths, the c om pany’s acc oun tant al er ted PaulTatm an that Barn ha r th a d u s e d the c o r po r a t e c r e di tc a r d t o p ur c ha se a ho m e- enter tai nm ent sys tem

— a pl as m a te l ev i si o n, speake rs , a w al l m ount, and a thre e- yea r ser vi ce pl an

— f or a t otal c ost o f$7, 919. 99. I n m aking the purchase , Barnharth ad re prese nted hi m sel fas the presi dent of T a t ma n ’ s . P a u l T a t ma n p r o mp t l y fi r e d h i m. Als o i n the s pr i ngo f2 00 3, Ba r nha r t be g ans ee i ng

— fi rst p ro fes sio n ally an d lat er so c ially

— Dr. S andra S chw ar tz, a c h irop ra c to r w h o op er at ed a p ro fita b le c h irop ra c tic pract i ce a nd had a ne t worth ofr ough ly $1 m i l l i on. A fter he l osthi s j ob at Tatm an’ s, Barnhart pr ese nted Sc hw ar tz w i th hi s i dea to sta rt a col l i si on- re pai r com pany ca ll ed Bl ue S t a r Co l l i s i o n ( “ Bl ue S t a r ” ) , a nd S c hwa r t z l o aned Barnhart$2 5, 000 i n N ove m ber 2003 t o sta rtthe busi ness. Ba r n h a r t u s e d mo s t o f th a t mo n e y t o p a y p e r s o n a l e xpenses. O verthe next si x m onths, S chw ar tz contr ibuted about hal fa m i l l i on dol l ars in c api talto Bl ue S tarwith an un d e rstan d ing tha t she w ou ld receive an 85% ow ne rshi p stak e. But the tw o did n ot fo rm al i ze thi s a gr eem en t, an d Schw artz n ever bec am e a sha r e h o lder. Barn hartal so opened sev er alco rpor ate cr edi t- car d ac-4 N o. 07

- 2729
counts i n Schwartz’ s nam e and used the car ds to char ge approxi m ate l y $ 100, 000 i n pers onalexpenses . D espi te Schwartz’ s l oans, Bl ue S tarhad cash- fl ow probl em s, and Bar nhart needed to fi nd another sour ce offund s. I n the spri ng o f20 04, he e ntered into di scussions wi ththe r eg i o na l s al es r epr es en ta ti ve f o r DuPo nt ’s a ut o -b o dy u ni t, a nd Ba r nh a r ta nd Du Po nte xe c ut e d a l o an/ gu ar an ty/ su ppl y a g r ee m en t i n Apr i l 2 00 4. Pur su an t to the a gr eem ent, Barnhar t r ecei ved a $ 50 0, 000 l oan f ro m S unT rustBank, and Du Pont a gr eed to guar antee th e loan in exc ha ng e for B arn ha rt’s agr e e m e nt to pu rchase al l o fBl ue S tar ’ s a uto- re fi nish in g paint f ro m DuPo nt
. S ch war tz i n tur n perso na l l y g ua r an te ed th e loa n, an d sh e in st ru c te d B ar n h ar t t o in for m h er of all expend i ture s r ela te d to the l oan. Exhibi t B o fthe l oan agreem en t requ ired B a r nh art to d isclose Blue Sta r’s “Ind ebte d ne ss,” w hich B arn ha rt l isted as “non e.” Barn ha rt als o re prese nted to DuP ont that Blue St arwould not be i nsol vent afterthe executi on o fthe agr eem ent a nd ag re ed that the l oan proce eds would be used onl y t o pu rchas e e qu i pme ntf o r the b o dy s ho p. S o o n a fte r Bl ue S ta r a nd DuPo ntc l o se d o n thi s l o an, Sch w artz left for a f e w da ys to care for he r si ck m oth er. W he n sh e return ed , the l oan m one y w as gon e. B arn ha rt ha d t r an sfer r ed $3 0, 00 0 i nt o hi s per so na l ac co unta nd u se d t h e s e fu n d s t o p u rc h as e a h ottu b , a fou r-w h ee l allter ra i n vehi cl e, a 50 -in c h pl asm a t el evi si on, and to m ake ch il d -sup p ort pa ym en ts to his ex-w if e. (Ba rnh art ap p ears t o h a v e c om m itted the rest of the loan fun d s to pa y off var i ous s tar t- up cos ts, i ncl ud i ng equi pm ent a nd bui l ding-N o. 07

- 2729 5 desi gn co sts ; the gov er nm en t d id not ques ti on thi s use ofl oan proce eds. ) Bl ue S tarwent out o fbusi n ess so on ther eafter, a nd DuP ont w as l eft o n the hookto S unT rust f orthe enti re $5 00, 000.

B. Dist r i ct - CourtPro ceedi ngs On M ay 6, 20 05, a federa l gr and ju ry i n the Central Dist ri ct o fI l l i noi s r etur ned an i nd i ctm ent a gainst Barnha r t, c ha r g i ngh im wi ththr ee c o unt s o fwi r e f r au d i n v i o l a t i o n o f1 8 U. S

. C

. § 1 3 4 3

. Count s O n e a n d T wo concern ed Barnhar t’ s a cti ons w hen he was em plo yed by Ta tm an’ s, and Count Three concerned the $ 500, 000 l oan f r o m S unTr us t an d D uPo nt
. S pec i fi ca l l y, Co untOne al l eg ed tha t Barnha r t co m m i tt ed wi r e f r au d whenhe p urc ha sed a set of cu stom tir es a nd ri m s on h is Tatm an ’s cr edi t ca r d wi th o uta utho r i tyfr o m hi s empl o y er . Co unt Two r el at ed to Ba r nha r t’ s pur ch as e o fthe ho m e- en te r ta i nm en t sy st em us i ngthe Ta tman’ s cr ed it car d. And Co unt Three al l ege d that B arnhart obt ai ned the DuPont/ S un Tr us tl o a n thr o ugh f r a ud

. The case pro ceeded to tr i al

. Because th i s a pp eal pr i m ar i l y c o nc erns Ba r nha r t’ s co nv i ct i o n o n Co unt Three

— the mo s ts ub s t a nt i a l o fthe fr a ud s

— w e c a n s k ip further d iscussi on o fthe evi dence on the o therco unts. The g o ve r nm en t’ s th eo r y regar di ngthe DuPo ntfr au d w as that Barnharti ntenti onal l y m isr epres ented that Bl ue S ta r h ad no i nde bt edn es s an d was no t i ns o l ve nt in ord er to ob ta in th e loa n, an d th at h e fra u d u le n t ly u s e d s o me o fth e l o a n p r o c e e d s t o p u r c h a s e p e r s o n a l i t e ms an d pay hi s chi l d-support obl i gat i ons. M uch ofthe tr i al6 N o. 07

- 2729

The l oanag re em en ti s no ta m odelofc l ar i t y. A p p ar en t l y, no 1 pa r t o fthe l oa n a gr e e m e nte x pl i c i t l y s t a t e d wh a ts ho ul d b e l i s t ed i n Ex hibi tB, whi c h was t i t l ed “ I ndebt edne s s .” The c on t r a c ti t s e l fde fi ne d “ I nd e bt e dn e s s ” ina r a th e r c ompr e he ns i ve m an ne r. It also d efined “A u tho rized Ind eb ted ne ss” as: ( i) Indebtedness und er the Lo a n s; (i i) purchase m oney indebtedn es s; ( ii i) capit al le ase obligat ions ; ( iv) unsec ured currentl iabil it ie s ( other than li abili ti es f or borrow ed m oney or l i abi l i t i es e vi denced by pr om i s s or y no t es , bonds or s i m i l ar i ns t ru m en t s ) i nc ur re d i n the ordi nar y c our s e of b u siness an d either ( A ) no t m or e tha n n inety ( 90 ) d ay s pa st d u e, or (B) be ing d ispu ted in g oo d f aith b y ap p ro p r i a te pro c ee di ngs with r es er ves f or s uc h di s put ed l i abi l i t y; (v) oth er u nsec u red Ind eb ted ne ss not to ex c e ed Fifty T h o u s a n d D o l l a r s ( $ 5 0 , 0 0 0 ) i n th e a g g r e g a t e a to n e t i me out s t andi ng; ( vi ) l oa ns obt ai ne d f ro m Bl ue St ar Col l i s i on sh a re h o ld er s a n d (v ii) the In d ebtedness speci f i cally list ed on E x h ibit B

. ( Em phasis ad d ed .) As w e ex plain l ater, the parti es offered com p eting interp reta tion s of the ag reem en t. tes ti m ony f ocuse d on Ex h ibi t B o fthe l oan agr eem ent, w hi ch r e qu i r e d B a r nh a r tt o di s c l o s e Blue S t a r ’ s i nd e b t e dness. The gov er nm ent m ai ntai ned that Barnhart ’ s s tat e-

1 m ent on E x h ibi t B thatBl ue S tarhad no debtwas an i ntenti ona l f al seho od; the pros ecuti on m ar shal ed subst an ti ale vi den ce e st ablishingtha t th e l o ana g r ee m en t re quir ed Barnhartto l i st all B lue S ta r i nde bt edn es s an d th a tB l u e S t a r h a d a r o u n d $ 1

. 1 m i l l i o n o fd e b ta tth e t i me he exec uted the agr eem ent. Besi des the l oan docum en ts , the evi dence i ncl ud ed co pi es o fBl ue S ta r ’ s fi na nc i alstat ement s an d t es ti m o nyN o. 07

- 2729 7 f r o m Do r o th y Li er m an, a cer ti fi ed publ i c ac co unt an t w h o w or ked f orBl ue S tari n 200 4. Li er m an te sti fi ed about the c om pany’s ge nera l fi nanci alsi tuati on a nd i ts i nde bt edn es s atthe t i m e o fthe l o ant ran sact i o n. S he al so expla i ned that “i nsol vency” m eant ei therthata com p an y’s l iabil iti es ex c e e d ed i ts asset s or, m ore gener al l y, thata com pany w as unabl e t o m eeti ts re gul ar debt o bl i ga tio ns, and that und erei therundersta nd i ng, B lue S t ar w as obviou sly ins olvent w he n B arn ha rt ex ecuted the l oan agr eem ent. She tol d the j ury that in M ay 2004

—j ust a fterthe l oan w as cl ose d

— B lue Star’s l i a b i l i t i e s e x c e e d e d i t s a s s e t s b y a tl e a s t$ 1 0 0 , 0 0 0 a nd p os sib ly a s m u c h as $5 00 ,00 0. Sh e sa id B ar n h ar t w ou ld ha ve b ee n wel l a war e o fthe c o m pan y ’s ind ebtne ss a nd i nsol vency. The go ver nm en t a l so offer ed the tes ti m ony of Gel so m i na Pa o l i ni, the l o anmana g era t DuPo ntwho h an d led th e t ra n sa c tio n . Pa olin i te st i fied th at th e o n ly fi nanci ali nfo rm ati on s he r ecei ved fr om Bl ue S tarafter F eb r ua r y 2 00 4 was c o nfi r m at i o n tha t Schwar tz ha d c o ntr ibut ed m or e th an$ 50 0, 00 0 to the c o m pan y . DuPo nt apparentl y cl ass i fi ed thi s as “i nvest m ent capi tal ” b ase d o n i ts i den ti fi cationa s an“ undo cument ed l o an ”

— an unsecured l oan of a shar ehol der on w hi ch ther e w as no m atur i ty date. Rega rdi ng Barnhar t’ s fra ud ule nt use ofthe l oan proce eds, the gov er nm ent e stabl i shed that Barnhartqui ckl y s pent $30 , 000 ofthe l oan proce eds o n perso nal expenses . B a r n h a r t ’ s d e fe n s e c o n si st ed p r i ma r i l y o fh i s o wn tes tim on y a nd thato fan a tto rneywh o re prese nted8 N o. 07

- 2729 Blue St ar du ring the l oan nego ti ati ons. A s to t h e al l ega ti on that he m i sr epres ented Bl ue S tar ’ s ind ebtedness, B arn ha rt claim e d t ha t the l oan agreem en t d id n ot requ ire hi m to di scl ose al l o fBl ue S ta r’s ind ebte dn ess and that eve n i fi t di d, he di d not intend to decei ve Du Pont when he w rote “ n o n e” on Ex hibit B. J effr ey D avis, B lue Star’s cou ns el du ring the t ran sact ion, testifi ed that Ba rnh art’s d isclosures on E xh ibi t B w ere argu ably not im p rop er. The att or ney s ai d t h e ag re em ent ne verm ade cl ear w hat debtsho uld be l i ste d on Exhibi t B; he des cribed whathe s ai d was the c o nfus i ngi nt er ac ti o n b etwee n the de fi ne d t e r ms “ I nd e b t e dn e s s ” a nd “ Autho r i z e d Ind e b t e dness” i n the contr act

—both of w hich (he con ten d ed ) w ere used to descr ibe e xi sting and future i nd ebte dn ess . Barnha r t cl ai m ed th athe i nf o r m ed DuPo ntabo ut Bl ue St ar ’ s fi nanci alco nd i ti on l ong before the c onsum m ati on of the loan. H e re a d ily ackn ow ledge d that Blu e Star’s l i abi l i ti es exceeded $1 m i l l i on at the ti m e the l oan cl ose d, b uth e s a i d h e di s c l o s e d the c o mpa ny ’ s fi na nc i al si tu at i o n months e ar l i erb y s en di ngDu Po nta Bl ue S tar p r o spe ctus . Pa o l i nic o nfi r m ed sh e r ec ei ve d the pros pectus a nd ackn ow l edged on c ro ss- exam i nati on tha t Du Po nt ha d r e l i e d o n i t t o c l a s s i fy the l o a n w as “hi gh r i sk. ” F i nal l y, Barnhar t t est i fi ed t h at he be l i eve d Blue St arco uld use the l oan fund s forbusi ne ss expenses such as p ay ro l l, and he char acte ri zed the $30, 000 that he t o o k f o r pe r s o na l us e a s “ pa y r o l l ” b e c a us e he had not received a salary for several m ont hs

. A ny m isun d ersta nd i ng o n thi s point, he c l ai m ed, was si m plya mi s t a k e r a the r tha n e v i de nc e o fi nt e ntt o de f r a ud

.N o. 07

- 2729 9 Du ring the te sti m ony ofpro secuti on a nd defense w i tn e s s es alike , th e jud ge int erj ec te d w ith qu es tio n s o f h is ow n. Ba rnh art d id n o t obj ect at th e tim e, bu t the j ud ge’s q u es tio n in g of t h e w itn es se s fi g u r e s p ro m in en tly in h is a p p e a l

. T h e j u r y r e t u r n e d g u i l t y v e r d i c t s o n C o u n ts T wo a n d T h r e e b u t wa s u n a b l e t o r e a c h a v e r d i c to n Co unt One

. I n c al cul at i ngthe a m o unto floss to de te r m i ne Barnha r t’ s adv i so r y S en te nc i ngGui del i ne s r an g e, the j ud ge i ncl ud ed B ar nhart’ s fra ud ule nt co nd uct ag ai nst Schwartz as re l evant c ond uct. The j ud ge sente nced B ar n h ar t t o 7 8 m on th s’ im p ris on m en t a n d ord er ed h im to pa y r e s t i t ut i o n o f$ 5 0 0 , 0 0 0 t o Du Po nta nd $ 6 0 4 , 0 7 0

. 42 t o S c hwa r t z . T hi s a pp e a l f o l l o we d.

I I . Discussi on A . J ud i ci al Q uesti oning ofW i t nesses Barnhart ’ s pri m ar y c l ai m o n appeal i s t h at the di str i ct j u d ge’s questi oni ng o fwitnes ses was hi ghl y pr ej ud i ci al and ei thero ver tl y o r subtl y c onvey ed a bia s in f avo r of the g ove rnm ent. A cl ai m o f t hi s type r equi re s us to m ake two i nquiries: “F i rs t, we i nquir e whether the j ud ge i n f act conve yed a bi as re gar ding the defe nd ant’ s ho nesty o r g ui l t. I fs o , we co ns i derwhethe r the c o m p lai ning par tyha s sh o wn seri ou s pr ej udi ce r es ul tingfr o m the d ist ric t c ou rt ’s c om m en ts or q u es tio n s.” U ni t e d S t at e s v. Was hi ngt on , 41 7 F

. 3d 780, 78 4 ( 7th Ci r. 20 05) ( c i tat i on om i tte d). W e e val uate the j ud ge’s questi oni ng o fwitnesse s in the conte xt o fthe enti re t ria l a nd noti n i sol atio n . SeeU nite d State s v. M arti n , 189 F.3d 547, 554 (7th C ir. 1999 )

. “I fthe cour t’ s quest i ons w er e par ti alto the pros-10 N o. 07

- 2729

A t or al argum ent Barnh art s ugg es ted that pres erving an 2 obj ec t i on i n thi s c ont ex ti s i m pra c t i c al becau se ofthe obvi ous s en s i t i vi t y ofobj ec t i ng t o the j udge’ s c onduc ti n fro ntofthe j ur y. W e have pr evi ous l y a c knowl edge d the awkward ne ss of p re se rv in g a c l a i m o f ju d ic ia l b ia s. SeeUn i t ed Sta t es v. M cC ra y, 43 7 F. 3d 63 9, 64 4 ( 7th Ci r. 20 06 )

. N eve rthe l es s , the ob je c t i on m ust be m ade; bu t no th in g i n Federal Ru le ofEv idence 614( c) requir es thi s to be done in the j ury’ s prese nce. ecuti on and they coul d pr ej ud i ce the j ury’ s deci si on, th en re ver salo fthe convi cti on co u ld b e in or der. ” Id .; see also U nited Sta tes v. Verser, 91 6 F

. 2d 1268 , 12 72- 73 ( 7th Ci r. 19 90) ( expla i ni ng tha t a di str i ct j ud ge’ s duty t o av oid gi vi ng an “i m press i on t o the j ury that the j ud ge bel i eve s o ne ve rs i on of t h e e vid en c e a n d d isb elie ve s o r d ou b ts an ot h er ” is “[ f ] und am entalto the ri ght to a f ai r tr i al ” ( quotati on m ar ks om itted ))

. Bu t where, as here, the defe nd ant f ai l ed to m ake a t i me l y o bj e c t i o n t o the d i s t r i c tj u d g e ’ s qu e s t i o n i n g, we an al y ze the c l ai m o fi m pr o pers i g na l ing thr o ug h the l en s o fp l a i n - e r r o r r e v i e w. See F ED . R. C RIM . P. 52 (b ). Th is 2 m eans Barnhartm ust e stabl i sh that( 1) an e rr orhas occurr ed; ( 2) thati t was “pl ai n” i n t h e s ense that i t was cl ea r ; ( 3) tha t i t affec ted his “s ubs ta nt i alr i g ht s” ; a nd ( 4) that i t “se ri ousl y affecte d the f ai rnes s, i ntegrity, or pu bl i c r eputati on o fthe j ud i ci alpro ceedi ngs. ” U nited Sta tes v. A skew , 403 F.3d 496 , 503 (7th C ir. 2005). Di st r i ctj ud g es ha ve b r o ad di sc r et i o n in c o nduc ting tr i al s a nd m ay questi on witnesse s duri ng d ire c t o r cro ssex am ination to clarify testim ony or assist th e j ury’s u nd er-N o. 07

- 2729 11
sta nd i ng o fthe evi dence. See F ED R. E V ID . 61 4 (b); U nited St at e s v. M cCray, 4 37F

. 3d 63 9, 64 3 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 6)

. Butthe j ud g e ’ s di s c r e t i o n t o que s t i o n wi tne s s e s i s n o tu nfe t t e r e d; the j ud ge m ay not “ass um e the ro l e of an ad vo c at e fo r ei th er si de” b y e i th ers i g na l i ngthr o ug h h i s que st i o ns that he thi nks a witnes s i s no t cr edibl e o r sugge sting tha t h e d isb elie ve s a p ar ty ’s t h eo ry o ft h e c as e. M arti n , 18 9 F. 3d at 553. Barnhartar gues that t he j ud ge’ s quest i oni ng o fbo th defe nse a nd pro secuti on witnesse s was so o ne- sided that i t co nveye d the c l eari m press i on that the j ud ge th ou gh t the gov ernm en t’s c ase w as stron g and Ba rnh art’s defe nse i m pla usibl e. H e poi nts fi rs t to the j ud ge’ s q u esti o ni ngo fJ eff r eyDa vi s, Bl ue Star’s c o uns eldur i ngthe l o anne g o ti at i o ns . Da vi s te sti fi ed ab o uthi s unde r st an di ng ofthe l oan agr eem ent’ s defi ni ti on o fi nd ebte dn ess an d whathe s ai d wer e i ts c o nfus i ngi nstruct i o ns abo ut how to di scl ose Bl ue S ta r’s i nd ebte dn ess . Duri ng cr oss ex ami na ti o n, the pr o se cut o r s par r ed wi thDa vi s o ve r the properi nter preta ti on o fthe agr eem ent. Davi s t ried to expla i n that th e co nfusi on s tem m ed fro m the agr eem ent’ s use o fthe ter m s “ i nd ebte dn ess ” an d “author i zed in d eb te d n es s.” A t t h is t h e d ist ric t jud ge int er ru p te d : T HE C O URT : I fDuP ont knew there was $1. 1 m i llio n wo r th o fi nd e b t e dn e s s , wo ul d the y h a v e ma de th i s l o an ? T HE W ITNESS : Id o n otkn ow . I d on ’t k n ow w h at w as in th e

— probabl y not w i th the bala nce sheets thatthey

— T HE C O URT : Especi al l y i fo ne doc u m en t s ays “no ne” an d an oth er d oc u m en t sa ys “ 1.1 m illion .” T h at ’s a big var i ance, i sn’ t i t?12 N o. 07

- 2729 T HE W ITNESS : Yes. A nd Ithi nk tha t the i ssue i s . . . that the defi ni ti on o f“a uthor i zed i nd ebte dn ess ” s ets f orth al l tho se i tem s which a re autho ri zed p u rs u ant t o th e ag r ee m en t, whi chl i st s al l o f(i) thr o ug h ( vi ) , a nd then has a sec on d catch- al l wh i ch w oul d cove r anyth ing tha t w asn ’t covered throu gh ( i) throu gh ( vi). T H E C O URT : But theywere tr yi ng to ge t thei r m oney gu aran teed and not p ut them selves in a pos iti on th ey’d have to fi ght a nybody el se, r i ght? T HE W ITNESS : Yes , sir
. The se l ead i ngque st i o ns r ea d l i k e a cr o ss - ex ami na ti o n. The fi r stque st i o n f o r ce d Da vi s to s pec ul at e wi th o ut f oundati on a s t o the m ate ri al i ty ofBarnhar t’ s r epres entati ons , a nd i t a l so taci tl y r ej ecte d the defense theo rythat DuPo ntwas s uffi ci en tly i nf o r m ed o fthe sta tu s o fBl ue S ta r’ s deb t bythe pr o spe ctus Ba r nha r t pr o vi ded m o nths be f o r e th e l o anc l o se d. Th e se co nd a nd thi r d que st i o ns l ar g ely di smi ss ed Dav i s’ s pr o ffer ed i nt er pr et at i on o fthe contr a c t, b y wh i c h he t r i e d t o e xp l a i n the v a r i a nce betw een Blu e Star’s actu al ind ebte d ne ss an d Ba rnh art’s re p re sentati on o n Exh ibi t B. I n shor t, the exchange st r o ng l y s ug g es ts tha t t he di st r i ctj udg e do ubt ed th e p lau sib ility of bo th D av is’s t es tim on y in p ar tic u lar as w ell as the o ve r al l de fen se the o r y tha t Ba r nha r t m er ely mis underst oo d the t er m s o fthe l oan agr eem ent a nd d i d not knowingl y dece i ve Du Pont. Barnha r t al so directs us t o s ev er alque st i o ns fr o m the j ud ge w hi ch se rv ed to em phasi ze unco ntest ed f acts that wer e hi g hl y unf av o r ab l e to the de fen se . For exa m pl e, the j ud ge re pe at ed ly aske d D avi s a nd Barnhar t t o adm i t thatN o. 07

- 2729 13

D avis tes ti fie d on cros s- exam inat ion that he tol d Du Pont that 3 th e l o a n s w e r e “ u n d o c u me n t e d

. ” T h e p r o s e c u t o r s h o w e d h i m a c op y o fB l u e S t a r ’ s b a l a n c e s h e e tt o d e mon s t r a t e th a tth e l o ans w ere reflec ted on the com pany ’ s boo ks. D avis sai d that was no t w ha t he m ean t by “u nd ocu m en ted ” a n d tried to explai n thathe was referri ng t o a l oan w ithout a prom is sory not e s et t i ng for th r epa ym en tterm s o r i nt er es tr at es . The j udge in te rr u p te d : T HE C OU RT : H ad [Barnhart] ever pres ente d this [ balance shee t e xhibi t] , a c opy ofthi s to you? T HE W I TNESS : Not thi s bal anc e s he et, no . T HE C OU RT : H a d a nybo dy

— or , w ell, ha d [ B arn ha rt] pr es en ted t o you the num ber of$433, 532. 57 [ the loan am ount speci fie d on the balance shee t] ? T HE W I TNESS : I kn ew th at tha t’ s the ap p ro xim ate am ou nt o f [Schw artz ’ s] initial, her in itial inv estm en t. Y es. T HE C OU RT : O k a y . A n d th a tc a me fr o m h i m? T HE W ITN E SS : Correct

. An d it w as, i t was

— again, w hen w e orig in all y m et, thatw as

— itw as supp osed to be a m i l l i on dol l ar s ; but, ag ai n, thatnum ber c am e f ro m [B a rn h a rt ]. Ba r nh a r tc o nt r o l l e d a c c e s s t o a l l o fBlue S t a r ’ s fi na nci al inform ation. D avis ha d alread y testifi ed th at B arn ha rt ne ve r s ha r ed Bl ue S ta r ’ s ba lance s he etwi thhi m a nd expla i ned that he usual l y doe s no t s ee a c l i ent’ s fi nanci al i nf o r m at i o n. W he n Da vi s m o ve d on to expl ain wha t he m eant b y th e phra se “und ocum ented l oans, ” the j ud ge i nt er r upt ed hi s ex pl an at i o n t o r etur n t o hi s t es ti m o ny th atBa r nha r t ne ve r s uppl i ed hi m wi thBl ue Sta r ’ s fi na nci alst ate m ents. The j ud ge al so j um ped in d uri ng a ser i es 3 ofque s t i o ns t o Da v i s ab o utwh a tBa r nh a r twa s r e qu i re d14 N o. 07

- 2729

D avis conti nued to press the notio n thatthe only debt that 4 ne ede d t o be r epo rt ed o n Exhibi tB w as unauthor i ze d debtan d ex pl ai ne d that al l othe r debt would have bee n di s c l os ed o n the balance s heet s. The f oll ow ing ex change then foll ow ed b etween th e d ist ri ct ju d g e, D a v is, a n d th e g o v er n m en t: T HE C OU RT : A nd an y b ala nc e shee t that w as sent to D u P on t by M r. Ba rn ha rt, y ou nev er saw tha t? T HE W I TNESS : I d id n o t se e t h o se b a la n ce sh ee ts. N o . M R . B ASS : So you ’ re not disputing that Du Pont had as ked for an d w as inter ested in find ing ou t ab ou t w ha t d eb t, reg ard less of w ha t it w as, B lue S tar ha d b efore it m ad e this loan .

. . [ ?] T HE W I TNESS : I ’ m notdi s put i ng that

. . . . The on l y thi ng I wa s di s pu t i ng wa s wha twou l d f a l l o n Ex hibi tB. At thi s poi nt i n Bar nha rt ’ s c ro s s - ex am i nat i on, the pr os ec ut or 5 show ed B arnhart a copy of the prospectus , w hich contai ned an ex pl ana t i on t hatB l ue St ar an t i c i pat ed a ppro xi m at el y $ 1 m i l l i on i n de btwhe n i t op e ne d i t s do or s . Ba r nh a r tt e s t i fi e d tha th e g a ve thi s pr os pec t us t o h i s c ont ac tatDuPont in e ither Fe brua ry or M a r c h of2 0 0 4

. Th e j udg e the n a s ke d: T HE C OU RT : A n d I th in k y o u p re se n te d it to [th e c o n ta ct ]? T HE W I TNESS : T h a t’s co rr ec t. T HE C OU RT : An d M r. D avis tes ti fie d that he never s aw that; i s thatcorr ect ? (co n tin u ed ...) to d isclose conc ernin g B lue Star’s i n d e bted ne ss. La ter, 4 w hen Barnhar t co ntended that the pro spectus he sent to Du pont had su ffi ci entl y di scl ose d Blue S tar ’ s fi nanci al si tu at i o n, the j udg e i nt er r upt ed to g ethi m t o c o nfi r m he h ad neve r gi ven Davi s a co py ofthe pros pectus. These 5N o. 07

- 2729 15

(

. . . c on t i nu e d) 5 T HE W I TNESS : Y eah. H e wo uld not have. T HE C OU RT : Okay. For ex am pl e, nearthe end ofPaol i ni ’ s d i re c te xa m i nat i on, the 6 j ud ge as k ed h er to confir m that“[ b]as ed on the re prese ntation s m ad e, you m ad e a b u siness d ecision tha t the b u siness c oul d have su ff i c i en ti nc om e t o pa y thatm onthl y . . . debt[ on th e l o a n ] ? ” Ev e n th o u g h th i s qu e s t i o n a s k e d P a o l i n i t o s u mm ariz e a p or tion of her testim on y t h a t w as d etrim en tal to Bar nha rt, i twas wel l withi n the appr opr i at e zon e ofdi s c re t i on; jud g es are p erm itted to ask w itness e s t o su m m ariz e the ir testim on y as an aid to jur or s. A ltho u g h w e ha v e p rev iou sly hel d thatt oo m any c l ar i fyi ng ques t i ons m ay ope ra t e to im perm is sibly rei nf orce tes ti m ony detr im ental to the d efen d a n t a n d am o u n t to im p ro p er ju d ic ia l sig n a lin g , seeU n i te d St a t e s v. Pal a di no , 40 1 F .3d 47 1, 47 8 ( 7th Ci r. 20 05 ) , thi s i s no t s uc h a que s t i on. questi ons gave the i m press i on that the j ud ge w as ske pti cal of Ba rn h ar t’s c laim th at h e d id n ot w illfu lly w i t h h old i nfo rm ati on about Blue St ar ’ s debt

. The j ud ge al so questi oned the gov er n m ent’ s witnesse s, and al though m osto fthi s was i nnocuous, we are tr oubl ed 6 by o ne p a r t i c ul a r p a s s a g e i n the t e s t i mon y . Du r i ngc r oss ex am ination of L ierm an, Blu e Star’s accou nt an t, B arn ha rt’s t r i a l c o un s e l wa s a tte m pt i ngt o e s t a b l i s h tha tthe c o nc e pt of“insol vency” co uld have a differ en t m eani ng to a cer ti fi ed publ i c ac co unt an t th ant o a l ayb us i ne ss per so n. B ar n h ar t’s co u n se l as ke d L ier m an to res ta te th e d e f i n iti on o fthe ter m she had used on di re c t ex am i nati on s o he cou ld com p are it to his ow n p rop osed l ayp erson ’s16 N o. 07

- 2729

Bar nha rt ’ s arg um en tpr ope rl y t ake s i s s ue with the e ffec tof 7 the j udge’ s que s t i ons an d notwith the e ffec tofdam agi ng res pon se s to otherw is e neutral cl ari fying quest ions
. The d is ti nct i on i s c ri t i c al i n c as es al l eg ing i m pro per j udi c i al s i gna l i ng. “[T ]he ru le con cern ing ju d icial inter ro g atio n is d esign ed to p r e v e n tj u dg e s fr o m c o n v e y i n g p r ej u di c i a l me s s a g e s t o the j ur y . It is notc onc er ne d with the dam agi ng t ru th thatthe quest ions m ight uncov er. ” M a rt in , 189 F. 3d at 554. defi ni ti o n. Af te r Li er m an r es ta te d the de fi ni ti o n, the j ud g e s a i d t o h e r : “ An d s o th a t ’ s wh a t y o u wo u l d de f i ne th ena s i ns o l ve nc y wi thy o ur3 0- y ea r e xpe r i en ce , y o ur ed u c at ion, i s t h at th er e’s n ots u fficie n t m on ey co m in g in to pay the bi l l s that nee d to be pai d on a m onthl y b asi s?” This at te m pt to b o l st erthe pr o se cut i o n’ s wi tn es s to o kthe w i nd out of the sai l s of the defe nse att or n ey ’s c ro ssex ami na ti o n. Con si der ed as a who l e an d i n l i g hto fthe e nt i r e t r i al, the j ud ge’s qu estio n in g of th e w itness es w en t beyon d m ere cl ar i fi ca ti o n and ins te ad g av e th e i m pr es si o n tha t th e j ud ge disb el i eve d Barnhart’ s defense. Tri alj ud ges need 7 n ot b e s i l ent s pectat or s, but they a ren e u t r a l a rb i t e r s ; the quanti ty and quali ty ofthe j ud ge’ s quest ions i n thi s ca se conve yed a n im propersk epti ci sm abo ut Barnhar t’ s defense. Th is w as error, bu t w he th er i t affecte d Ba rnh art’s su bsta nt ialri gh ts is anoth er m atter. To es tabl i sh p re j u d i ce, Barnhar t m ust s how thatbut f or the j ud ge’ s i m properquesti oni ng, he pr obab l y would not h av e b ee n co n vic te d

. Se eU ni t e d Sta te s v. O l ano , 507 U

. S. 725, 734 (1993). Th at is, i f th e ev id e nc e of gu il t is over-N o. 07

- 2729 17

Al tho ug h j ur ors a r e pr e s umed t o f ol l ow l i m i t i ng o r c ur a t i ve 8 i ns t ru c t i ons , i n thi s as i n o the r c ont ex t s , a l i m i t i ng i ns t ru c t i on m a y be i ns uffi c i e ntt o ful l y ore ve n pa r t i a l l y c ur e a t r i a l e rror. C f. U n ited S tates v . S m ith , 308 F. 3d 726, 7 39 ( 7th Cir

. 2002) ( “[ J ] ur or s are p resum ed t o f ol l ow l i m i t i ng a nd c ur at i ve i nstru ction s un less the m atter im p ro p erly b efore th em is so po we r ful l y i nc r i m i na t i ng tha t t he y c a nn otr e a s on a bl y be ex p ec te d to p u t it o u t o f th ei r m in d s.” ). w hel m i ng, thi s type o fer ro r can be c on si dered har m l ess . Se eU ni t e d S t at e s v. Pal adi no , 401 F.3d 471 , 478 (7th C ir. 2005 ). A lth ou gh th e t ria l ju d ge ’s in flu en c e o n th e jur y is or dinar i l y “ ofgr eatweight, ” Q uercia v. U nit e d Sta tes , 28 9 U

. S. 46 6, 47 0 ( 1933 ) ( quotati on m ar ks om i tte d), the risk ofprej ud i ce fro m j u dici alquesti oni ng ca n be m i ni m i zed i f, as her e, the j u d ge is su es an i nstr ucti on a t the cl ose o f th e c a s e re m in d in g t h e jur y t h at n ot h in g h e s aid sh ou ld be c onst rued as an o pini on about the e vi den ce o r to sugge st w hat the j ury’ s ver dictshould be

. Se e, e . g. , M cCray, 43 7 F .3d at64 4. Su c h an ins tr u c tio n m igh t n oten tir ely er ase the sugge sti ve effect ofo ne- si ded questi ons f ro m the j ud ge, but i t l i m i ts th e degre e o finfl uence the ques-

8 ti o ns mighto th er wi se ha ve o n the j ury’s del ibe r at i o ns and m ay perm i t a concl usi on that the j ud ge’s error w as not prej ud i ci al

. This i s especi al l y t rue w here , as her e, th e ev i den ce o f g ui l t i s ve r y st r o ng . W e ar e con fi d ent th a t the j ud g e ’ s qu e s t i o ns t o the wi tne s s e s , tho ugh they c ro ss ed th e lin e, d id n otaffe c t t h e o u tc om e o f th is t ria l. The basi c f acts ofthe case

— the detai l s ofthe Du Pont l oan tr an sa ct i o n, Bl ue S ta r ’ s i nde bt edn es s an d i ns o l ve nc y, a nd Barnhart ’ s m i sappropri ati on o fthe loan proce eds f or pe r s o na l use

— w er e no t in dis pu te. The ve rdi ct turned18 N o. 07

- 2729

o n the que st i o n o fBa r nha r t’ s i nt en t

— w hetherh e intended to de f r a ud Du Po nt whe n he r e pr e s e nt e d tha t Bl ue S tar had no i nd ebte dn es s a nd was so l vent, and w hen he use d $3 0, 00 0 o fthe l o anfunds f o r pe r so na l e xpe ns es , i nc l udi ng the purchas e o fa 50- i nch pla sm a t el evi si on, a hot tub, an al l

- ter ra i n vehi cl e, and paym ent o f back chi l d supp or t. L et’s start w ith t h e m isuse of the $30 , 000. Ba rnh art cl ai m ed that he honest l y thought he coul d use the l oan pr o ce eds t o pa y ge ne r alb us i ne ss e xpe ns es , i nc l udi ng “payr ol l, ” a nd thatthe $30, 000 r ep re sente d his sa l ar y. I m p lausible on its face, the p rosecu tion’s evide nc e overw hel m i ngl y c on tr ad i cted thi s cl ai m . Fi rs t, usi ng anyo f the l oan m on ey f or“payr ol l ” was pl ai nl y in vi ol ati on o f the l o a n a g r e e men t, w hi c h s t i pu l a t e d tha tthe fun ds w er e t o be use d onl y forpurchasing auto
-body m achi nery . Secon d , that the $3 0,000 w en t prim a ril y tow ard the p urch as e o fl uxur y pe r so na l i te m s sever ely unde r m i ne s th e al re ady i m pla usibl e cl ai m that t he m oneyr epres ented Barnha r t’ s “s al ar y . ” F i na l l y, Ba r nha r t’ s hi st o r y o ffr au d

— as repr es en te d b y hi s cy ni ca l de ce pti o n o fS ch war tz a nd hi s co nvict ions f ortheft a nd decepti ve pract i ces

— mad e hi s cl ai m o fi nnocent i ntent si m plyunbel i evab l e. Li k e wi s e , Ba r nh a r t ’ s e ff o r t s t o ex pl a i n a wa y h i s mi s r e pre senta ti ons re gar ding Blue St ar ’ s s ol vency and l ack of in d eb te d n e s s m u st be se en in ligh t o f th e o b vio u sly fra u d u len t e n d ga m e o f th is s c h e m e, as w ell as h is ongo i ng f ra ud aga i nst Schwartz and hi s othe r c onvi cti ons. W hatev erpl ausibi l i ty hi s innocent expla nati on for th ese m isrepres en tations m ight ha ve h ad ( an d there w asn’ t m uch), i t e vap or ate s when consi dered i n l i ght o fN o. 07

- 2729 19 the re st of hi s conduct. The best pie ce of evi dence in h is f a v o r wa s P a o l i ni ’ s a c k no wl e dg men ttha th e h a d g i ven h er a c op y of B lu e St ar ’s p ro sp ec tu s in Fe b ru ar y 2 00 4; it li sted rough ly $1.1 m il li on in ex p en d itures, and Ba rnh art a r g ue d tha t Du Po nt s ho ul d ha v e r e a l i z e d tha tthes e ex pen di tu res woul d b e l i ab i l i ti es b y Apri l 2 00 4 when th e par ti es ne g o ti at ed an d e xe cut ed th e lo ana g r ee m en t. But w hat DuPon t sh ou l d have know n i s no t r eal l y the poi nt; the re st of the evi dence ove rwhelm i ng ly establ i shed Ba r nh a r t ’ s i nt e ntt o de f r a ud

. I n sh ort, althou gh the j ud ge’s qu estions w en t too far, B ar n h ar t h as n otes ta b lish ed th at th ey w er e p reju d i c ial. A ccor dingl y, w hi l e w e agr ee ther e w as er ro r, i t was notso signifi can t as to affect h is subs tan tial r ig h t s or requ ire c or re c tio n u n d er p lain -er ro r re vie w .
B. “ Para ding” Ba rnh art ’ s Pr i orConvi ct i on B ar n h ar t a lso cla im s t h at th e g ov er n m en t im p ro p er ly “p arad ed ” the f acts un d erlyi ng his co nv ictions for th eft an d de ce pti ve pr ac ti ce s, a dm i tt ed f o r i m p ea ch m en t pu rpos es. H e a cknowle d ge s that the g ove rnm ent was perm i tte d to go bey ond est abl i shi ng the m er e fa ct ofthes e co nv i ct i o ns ( per m itte d unde r Rul e 60 9( a) ( 1) o fthe F ede r alRules o fEv i den ce ) a nd qu es ti o n h i m r eg ar di ng th e spe ci fi c co nduc t unde r lyi nghi s co nv i ct i o ns pur su an t to Rul e 60 8(b) ( per m i tt i ngc r o ss - ex ami na ti o n r egardi ng speci fi c i nstance s o fco nd uct bearing o n a witness’ s char acte r f o r t r uthful ne ss )

. Ba r nhar t ar g ue s i ns te ad th atthe gov er nm ent went to o f arand explo i ted the fact s invol ved i n hi s theft a nd decepti ve- pract i ces convict ions. Fo r20 N o. 07

- 2729

su ppo r t he r el i es o n U nite d State s v. Sm ith , 4 54 F

. 3d 707 (7t h C ir. 20 06 ); U ni ted St at e s v. Rob i ns on , 8 F. 3d 398 ( 7th Ci r . 1 9 9 3 ) ; a nd C a m pb e l l v . Greer, 831 F.2d 700 ( 7th Cir. 1987 ) , but thos e ca ses ar e inapp l i cabl e. Both i nvol ved i m peachm ent b y pr i orco nvi cti on wh en the co nvi cti on w as offer ed und erRule 60 9, w h ich r est ri cts the intro
ducingpa r tyt o “ i den ti fy[i ng ] the pa r ti cul arfel o ny charg ed, the date, and the dispos i ti on of a p ri orco nvi cti on. ” Sm ith , 45 4 F

. 3d at 716. H er e, a s we ha ve no te d, Rul e 608 ( b) pe r m i tt ed th e g o ve r nm en t to c r o ss - ex ami ne Ba r nha r t r eg ar di ngthe f acts underl yi ng hi s th eft a nd decepti ve- pract i ces convi cti o ns be ca us e he was a wi tn es s an d the co nv i ct i o ns re lat ed to h is c h ar ac te r for tru th fu ln es s. R u le 4 0 3 m ay in so m e c as es lim it or p ro h ibit th is lin e o f qu es tio n i n g if i ts prej ud i ci aleffect w oul d substanti al l y o utw ei gh i ts proba ti ve val ue. But that’ s no t the cas e her e. The ce ntra l f o cus o fthi s ca se was Ba r nha r t’ s i nt en t to de f r au d. The und er l yi ng f acts o fhi s theft a nd decepti ve- pract i ces c ase i nvol ved a $40, 000 f ra ud o n a fri end i n connect i on with th e o st en sibl e pur ch as e o fa l uxur y s ui te at th e Day to na Speedw ay. Thi s co urse o fco nd uct i s highlyr el evantto B arn ha rt’s chara cter for truth fulnes s. T he govern m en t’s cro ss- exam i nati on o n the sp ec ifi cs o fBarnhar t’ s pri or convi cti ons w as enti re l y a pp ro pri ate
.
C. Ba rnh art ’ s Sentence and Resti t uti on O r der Barnhartchal l enges hi s s entence and re sti tu tio n or der on t w o gr ounds. Fi rs t, he a rgues that the di strictj ud ge er r ed i n d eterm i ni ngthe a m o unto fl o ss b y i nc l udi ngtheN o. 07

- 2729 21 fun d s Sch w artz p rovide d t h r ou gh l oan s and cred it- card c ha r g e s a s r e l e v a nt c o nd uc t
. S e c o nd , Ba r nh a r tc o nt e nd s that the c ou rt er re d i n or deri ng hi m to pay re sti tuti on b as ed on th is re lev an t c on d u c t. T h e g ov er n m en t c or re c tly concedes that the dist ri ct cour t er re d in i ts re stituti on or der; l oss es re sul ti ng fro m r elevant co nd uct ar e no t p ro p er ly w ith in t h e s c op e o f res tit u tio n . See U nited Sta tes v. Fri th , 461 F.3d 91 4, 92 0- 2 1 ( 7 t h C ir. 20 06 ). B ar n h ar t is en ti tl e d t o a r e ma n d f o r mo d i fi c a t i o n o fth e j u d g me nt to rem ove th at am ou nt from the restitu tion ord er. A s forthe l oss am ount, the dist ri ct c ourtco ncl ud ed that Barnhartcause d a to talo f$1 , 104, 070. 42 i n l osses

— $6 04 ,07 0.4 2 t o Sc h w ar tz an d $5 00 ,00 0 t o D u P on t. Sp ec ifical l y, the cour t found that t h e fra ud ag ai nst S chw ar tz w as “i nextri cabl y inter tw i ne d ” w i th the fra ud ag ai nst Du Pont a nd co uld be co nsi dered r el evantco nd uct un d er U

. S. S. G. § 1 B1. 3( a) ( 2)

. W e r evi ew thi s dete rm i natio n for c lea r er ro r. Fri th , 46 1 F.3d at 91 7. B a r n h a r t ch all e n g e s th i s l o s s c a l c u l a t i o n o n t wo g r o u n d s . H e c l a i ms ther e i s no ev i dence S chw ar tz’ s l oss r esul ted fro m c rim in al c on d u c t, an d h e a r g u es it w as n otsu fficie n tly re l ate d to the s chem e t o defr aud D uP on t to count a s “r el evant ” co nd uct. Both a rgum ents ar e without m er i t. “A defendant w ho chal l enges a dist ri ct c ou rt ’ s l oss cal cul ati on car ri es a heavy burden, f or he m ust show that the c a l c ul ati o n wa s n o to nl y i na c c ur a t e , b uta l s o o ut s i de th e re al m o fposs ibl e co m pu tat i on. ” U ni t e d S t at e s v. Wheeler, 54 0 F

. 3d 683, 69 3 ( 7th Ci r. 2008) (quotat i on m ar ks om i tte d ). Un der the gui del i nes r el evantco nd uct i ncl ud es
“ a l l a c t s a n d o mi s s i o ns . . . th a tw e r e p a r to fth e s a me co ur se o fc o nduc t o r c o m m o n s ch eme o r pl ana s th e22 N o. 07

- 2729

o ffen se o fc o nv i ct i o n. ” U. S

. S

. G. § 1B1. 3( a) ( 2)

. Appl y i ng th is sta nd ar d, the di str i ct c ourtpro perl y c oncl ud ed that Barnhart ’ s dece i t o fS c hw ar tz am ounted to a cri m i nal f ra ud

. S chw ar tz l oaned Bar nhart i n excess o f$5 00, 000 base d on h is false pro m i se that she would have an 8 5% own er shi p i nter esti n B lu e S tar
. Barnhar t instea d used m ucho fthi s m o ne y f o r pe r so na l e xpe ns es , i nc l udi ng l uxur y p e r s o na l i t e ms a nd a t r i p t o the Ca y manI s l a nd s. Co ns i de r e d in l i g hto fh i s fr a ud ul e nts c he mes a gai nst Du Pont a nd PaulTatm an, hi s dece pti on o fS chw ar tz e a s i l y qua l i fi e s a s a c r i mi na l fr a ud

. B arn ha rt’s clai m th a t this con d uc t w as no t sufficie n tly in te rt w in ed w ith h is frau d on D u P on t is eq u ally unavai l i ng. The com m entar y to the gui del i nes note s that a “ com m on s chem e o r pla n ” for purposes o fa re l evant
co nduc t fi ndi nge xi st s wher e th e tw o a cts a r e “s ubs ta nti al l y c onnecte d to e ach o therbyatl eas t o ne co m m on f acto r, such a s co m m on vic tim s, co m m on a ccom pli ces, com m on p urp ose, or si m il ar m odus ope r andi

. ” Id. § 1B 1.3 c mt
. n . 9 ( A)

. T h e c o mme n t a r y fu r th e r s t a t e s th a tt wo acts are part of the s a m e c ou rse of con d uc t ifthey are “suffi ci entl y c onnecte d orr el ate d t o each o theras to w ar rant the concl usi on that they a re parto fa si ng le epi sode, spree , or ongo i ng ser i es ofoffe n ses . ” Id. cm t. n.9(B). T he tw o fraud s at issue here easily s a tisfy th is st an d ar d . T h ey o ve rla p p ed in t im e, inco n te x t, an d in th ei r ul ti m at e o bj ec ti ve . Both the fr au d o n S ch war tz a nd the fra ud o n Du Pont invol ved Barnhar t’ s use o fBl ue S tar to o btainmone y f o r hi s per so na l us e. Ba r nha r t’ s o ng o i ng decepti on o fS chw ar tz he l ped m ake hi s dece pti on o f Du Pont pos sibl e.N o. 07

- 2729 23 Th i s c a s e i s no t, a s Ba r nh a r t c l a i ms, l i ke U nited Sta tes v. Cof f m an , 9 4 F

. 3 d 3 3 0 , 3 3 7 ( 7 th C i r . 1 9 9 6 )

. T h e r e , we co nc l ude d tha t a fraud ule nts ch eme t o i nduc e o ne g r o up of in ve s t o r s t o p u rc h as e s to c k w as n otsu fficie n tly re l ate d to a separ ate f ra ud ule nt schem e tw o yea rs l ate r to bor ro w m oneyfro m a bank usi ng the sa m e s toc k a s se cur i ty
. Her e, i n c o nt r as t, Ba r nha r t’ s two fr au d ul en t sch em es w er e n e arly contem p oran eou s and so i nt ertwi ne d th a ti two u l d h a v e b e e n d i ffi c u l tt o c a r r y o ut each o ne i nd ependentl y. Acc o r di ng l y, f o r the f o r e g o i ng r e a s o ns , we co nc l ud e that al though the d istr i ct c ourt ’ s quest i oni ng o fthe w i tnesse s duri ng Barnhar t’ s t ri alwas im proper, thi s e rr or did notprej ud i ce Bar nhart’ s s ubstanti alr i ghts i n l i ght o f th e o v e r wh e l mi n g e v i d e n c e a g a i n s t h i m. T h e r e wa s no evi denti ar y e rr ori n the use o fBarnhar t’ s pri orco nvi cti ons f ortheft a nd decepti ve pract i ces, and the dist ri ct cou rt’s l oss calcu lation w as correct
. Th e rest it u t ion orde r, h ow ev er , sh ou ld n oth av e in c lu d ed am ou n ts at tr ibu ta b le to l oss fro m r el evantco nd uct. A ccor d in gly , we A FFIRM the c onvi cti ons and sen te n ce b ut V ACATE the re sti tuti on o r de r a nd R EMA ND f o r l i m i te d furthe r pr o ce eding s co nsi st en t wi ththi s o pi ni o n.

3- 26- 10