NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

____________

No. 10

- 1924

____________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v. ALBERT LEO BERRETTINI, JR. a/k/a Lee Berrettini (M.D. Pa. No. 4

- 07

- cr - 00422

- 001)

UNITED STA TES OF AMERICA

v. MARY ANN BERRETTINI (M.D. Pa. No. 4

- 07

- cr - 00422

- 002) Albert Leo Berrettini, Jr.; Mary Ann Berrettini, Appellants

____________ On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania (D.C. Nos. 4

- 07

- cr - 00422

- 001 and 4

- 07

- cr - 00422

- 002) District Judge: Honorable Christopher C. Conner

____________ Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) April 11, 2011 Before: FISHER, JORDAN and COWEN , Circuit Judges

. (Filed: June 16, 2011 )2 ____________ OPINION OF THE COURT

____________ FISHER, Circuit Judge

. Albert Berrettini was co nvicted of ten counts of criminal tax offenses, including filing false individual and corporate income tax returns and filing a false treasury form. For the re asons stated below, we will affirm.
I. We write exclusively for the parties, who are familiar with the factual context and legal history of this case. Therefore, we will set forth only those facts necessary to our analysis. In 1994, Albert Berrettini (“Be rrettini”) and his wife became involved in the “Tower” scheme, where clients moved money to foreign bank accounts and shell corporations and then repatriated the money using debit cards, “scholarships,” and “loans.” As their primary source of income, the Berrettinis owned and operated Bert’s Pharmacy. The pharmacy made payments to Matrixx, their shell corporation, under the pretext of consulting and other fees. Despite a lack of evidence that Matrixx provided any goods or services, Berrettini created fal se invoices purporting services rendered. The money continued to flow through this elaborate scheme until the Berrettinis would finally “borrow” the money back and make some low

- interest payments to one of their own offshore accounts, financing their busi ness and a new home. From 1996 to 2005, the3 Berrettinis filed tax returns that failed to report income and claimed false deductions totaling $624,338, resulting in a criminal tax liability of $242,513. On October 25, 2007, the Berrettinis were charged wit h eleven counts of tax offenses: conspiracy to defraud the United States by filing false individual income tax returns in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371 (Count 1 ); filing false individual income tax returns and false corporate tax returns for both a foreign corporation and a United States corporation in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7206(1) (Counts 2

- 10); and filing a false treasury form in violation of 31 U.S.C. § 5314 (Count 11). Prior to trial, proceeding pro se , Berrettini filed numerous frivolous motions and requests, including a challenge to the District Court’s jurisdiction to hear the case

. 1

In April 2009, the District Court granted Berrettini’s request for a continua nce to retain counsel, and Berrettini further delayed trial by claiming a physical condition that was later determined to be unfounded. A gainst the District Court’s advice, Berrettini decided to proceed pro se , and the District Court appointed standby counsel

. T he jury T he District Court ordered a psychiatric examination of Berrettini. The report concluded that Berrettini could understand the nature and cons equences of his legal si tuation and that he could work with counsel. Despite plenty of time and financial resources, Berrettini did not retain counsel. Thus, the District Court appointed counsel for him and rescheduled his trial, clarifying that Berrettini could replace him wit h counsel of his own choosing.

1 Although Mr. and Mrs. Berrettini were tried together, this appeal perta ins to Albert only. Thus, we present the facts relevant to Albert Berrettini’s appeal.4 convicted Berrettini and his wife of Counts Two through Eleven. The District Court sentenced Berrettini to 27 months’ imprisonment to be followed by a term of supervised release of three years, a fine of $7,500, and special assessments of $1,000. Berrettini filed a timely notice of appeal.
II. Berrettini makes a number of challenges, only some of which are legally cognizable. He cle arly challenges the District Court’s jurisdiction. T o give Berrettini the benefit of the doubt as a pro se litigant , we also review the sufficiency of the evidence. We first address jurisdiction. Berrettini argues that he is not subject to federal jurisd iction. On the contrary, Berrettini was charged with federal crimes, and t he District Court had subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3231

. W e have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We construe Berrettini’s brief to challenge the s ufficiency of the evidence. Because standby counsel preserved this issue at trial, we exercise plenary review. United
States v. Lee , 612 F.3d 170, 178 (3d Cir. 2010). However , the “ ‘ standard of review is highly deferential. ’ ” Id. (quoting United States v. Bornman , 559 F.3d 150, 152 (3d Cir. 2009)). When reviewing sufficiency of the evidence, we ask “ ‘ whether there is substantial evidence that, when viewed in the light most favorable to the government, would allow a rational trier of fact to convict. ’ ” Id. (quoting Bornman , 559 F.3d at 152).

“ ‘ We do not weigh evidence or determine the credibility of witnesses in making this determination. ’ ” United States v. Gambone , 314 F.3d 163, 170 (3d Cir. 2003) (quoting5 United States v. Beckett , 208 F.3d 140, 151 (3d Cir. 2000)). “ [ W ] e examine the totality of the evidence, both direct and circumstantial. We must credit all available inferences in favor of the government.” Id. (citations omitted). In the light most favo rable to the government, the evidence indicates that Berrettini filed multiple false tax returns, utilizing a sophisticated international tax evasion scheme. The government presented ample evidence to conclude that Berrettini filed tax returns that were: ( 1) false as to a material matter; ( 2) signed under penalties of perjury; ( 3) not believed to be correct as to every material matter; and ( 4) with the intent to violate the law. 26 U.S.C. § 7206(1). In sum, the government presented substantial evidence that s upports Berrettini’s conviction

. 2

2 Berrettini makes numerous frivolous arguments that we reject: that the government must produce a valid contract in order to prosecute; that Berrettini’s rights under the Speedy Trial Act were violated because the government failed to comply with American Bar Association standards; that Berrettini was before the District Court under threat, duress, and coercion; that Berrettini has yet to see the indictment against him; that the government violated the clean hands doctrine; that the prosecutor lacked authorization to prosecute his case; that the prosecutor has committed treason, sedition, and other high crimes and misdemeanors; that the prosecutor suppressed and withheld information from Berrettini; that the D istrict C ourt judge was biased and prejudiced against Berrettini; that the prosecutor tampered with witnesses and the jury; and that the jury members were prejudiced because Berrettini saw them associating with Inter nal Revenue Service and Treasury Department agents. We will therefore affirm the District
Court.

Berrettini makes only a fleeting reference to his sentence in his brief, asking us to “[r]everse and [d]ismiss” it. (Appellant's Op. Br. at 20.) Because he has not “substantively argued” that point, he has “abandoned and waived that issue on appeal.” Mitchell v. Cellone , 389 F.3d 86, 92 (3d Cir. 2004) (internal quotation marks omitted). Even if he had raised it properly, however, we would find no error in his below

guidelines

- range sentence.6 III

. For the foregoing reasons, we will affirm the judgment and sentence of the District
Court.