FI LED U.S. COURT OF APPEALS ELEV ENT H CI RCUI T MARCH 9 , 201 0 J OHN LEY CLERK [DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

No. 0 8- 12 61 0

D.C. Dock et No. 0 6- 00 26 0- CR-WS

UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A,

Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee,

ve rs us

PAMELA LYNN GA

NEY HYA TT, MIC HAEL L AIRD HYATT,

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 ur t fo r th e So ut he rn Dis tri ct of Al ab am a

(Ma rch 9, 2 01 0)Befo re BLACK, MAR CUS an d HIGGINB OTHAM, Cir cu it Ju dg es

. *

PER CURI AM:

Mi ch ael an d Pam el a Hy at t – hu sb an d an d wife – fil ed fo r ba nk ru pt cy ha lf- ado zen ti m es fro m 20 01 -2 00 6. The go ve rn m en t be cam e su sp ic io us whe n th e in co m e

rep or te d in th e co up le ’s ba nk ru pt cy fil in gs di d no t m at ch th e in co m e rep or te d in th ei r

ta x fo rm s. A fed eral gr an d jury is su ed a 19 -co un t su pe rs ed in g in di ct m en t, ge ne ral ly

ch arg in g th e Hy at ts wit h: (1 ) co ns pi rin g frau du le nt ly to co nc eal in fo rm at io n from a

ba nk ru pt cy co ur t; (2) com m it ti ng ba nk ru pt cy frau d; an d (3 ) m ak in g fal se st at em en ts 1 2

du rin g t he co ur se of t he si x b an kr up tc ie s. 3

The Hy at ts co nc ed ed th at th ei r ba nk ru pt cy fil in gs co nt ai ne d fal se st at em en ts ,
bu t th ey pl ead ed th at th e fal se ho od s were m is ta ke s; t h a t t he y la ck ed cri m in al

s c i e n te r; th at th ey ha d wro ng ly “ gu es st im at ed ” th ei r in co m e or th ei r at to rn ey s h a d

4

m ad e sc riv en er’s erro rs

. At tri al bo th Hy at ts to ok th e st an d, arg ui ng th ey wou ld ne ve r

Honora ble Patrick E. Hig g inbotham, United State s Ci r c u it Ju d g e f o r th e F if th Circuit, sitti ng * by desig nation.
18 U.S.C. § 371. 1
18 U.S.C. § 152(1) & (3). 2
18 U.S.C. §§ 152(2) & 1519. 3
The g overnme nt neede d to prove the H y atts acte d “knowing ly .” 4

2be so au da ci ou s as to pu t a c c u r at e in co m e on a ta x ret ur n an d th en li e ab ou t th e

am ou nt s i n b an kr up tc y

. Unp ers ua de d, th e jury co nv ic te d bo th de fen da nt s un de r th e co ns pi racy ch arg e

an d each un de r so m e – bu t no t al l – of th e free st an di ng frau d an d pe rjury ch arg es

.
The di st ric t co ur t se nt en ced Pam el a to 12 m on th s an d Mi ch ael to 60 m on th s in pr is on

an d o rd ered $4 ,02 0,2 43 .22 in res ti tu ti on . The co up le ap pe al ed , and we affi rm

. 5

The Hy at ts ur ge th at th e ev id en ce can no t s u pp or t a co nv ic ti on on an y of th e

ch arg es bu t ul ti m at el y do li tt le m or e th an as k th is co ur t to cred it th ei r si de of th e st or y

in st ead of th e pr os ecu ti on ’s. Thi s we can no t do
, fo r we rev ie w “ th e su ffi ci en cy of th e

ev id en ce de no vo an d vi ew th e ev id en ce in th e li gh t m os t fav or ab le to th e go ve rn m en t

wit h al l rea s o n a b l e i nf eren ces an d cred ib il it y ch oi ces m ad e in fav or of th e

go ve rn m en t to de te r m in e whe th er a reas on ab le jury co ul d co nv ic t.” W it h th is 6

st an da rd in m in d, t he Hy at ts m us te r bu t t wo co nt en ti on s ap pr oa ch in g t he pl au si bl e.

The Hy atts have raised a host of issues, including: the sufficie ncy of the evidenc e; the 5 propriety and amount of the restitution; the trial judge ’s impartiality and evidentiar y ruling s; and the validity of the indictment. We ha ve g iven ca

ref ul considera tion to each of the ar g uments and find them lacking in merit. “Those not specific ally addre ssed in our opinion do not merit discussion,” United States v. Rapp , 8 7 1 F. 2 d 9 5 7 , 968 n.16 (11th Cir. 1989), overruled on other grounds by United States v. De Castro , 113 F.3d 176, 179 (11th Cir. 1997), and we aff irm essentia l l y for the

rea sons stated i n the di strict court’s restitution order and in the order deny ing the Hy atts’ m otions for judg ment of ac quittal, for dismissal, or for new trial.
United States v. Campa , 529 F.3d 980, 992 ( 11th Cir. 2008). 6

3Pam el a ur ge s th at th e jury sh ou ld no t ha ve co nv ic te d he r fo r Co un t 17 : m ak in g

a fal se en try in a ba nk ru pt cy reco rd

. The al le ge d co nd uc t in vo lv ed om it ti ng te ns -o f- 7

th ou sa nd s of do ll ars in ga m bl in g win ni ng s fro m he r ba nk ru pt cy fo rm , m on ey Pam el a

st at es sh e ne ve r th ou gh t to in cl ud e. Sh e ga ve he r la wy er he r ta x do cu m en ts – whi ch

co n ta in ed th e ga m

bl in g in fo rm at io n – bu t he fai le d to reco rd th e win ni ng s in th e

ba nk ru pt cy fo rm ’s “ ot he r in co m e” cat e g o r y. B ot h sh e an d he r la wy er te st ifi ed as

mu ch

. The la wy er fu rth er te st ifi ed th at he to ld Pam el a to rev ie w th e do cu men t s t o

en su re th ei r accu racy – a n d w a r n e d he r of pe rjury. Alt ho ug h th e jury co ul d ha ve

cred it ed he r te st im on y , it di d no t – an d reas on ab ly co ul d ha ve fo un d gu il t be y on d a 8

reas on ab le do ub t.

As fo r th e co ns pi racy con vi ct io ns , Mic ha el arg ue s t ha t h e n ev er t al ke d t o h is

wife ab ou t fal si fy in g th e ba nk ru pt cy fil in gs

. Pam el a, fo r he r pa rt, ex pl ai ne d th at sh e

m erel y si gn ed for m s h er h us ba nd to ld he r to en do rs e.

“ It is well -s et tl ed th at th e ex is te nc e o f a n ag reem en t in a co ns pi racy cas e is

rare ly p r o v e n by di rect ev id en ce

. . . . In de ed
, be cau se th e cri m e of co ns pi racy is

18 U.S.C. § 1519. 7

See United States v. W

illiams
, 527 F.3d 1235, 1245 (11th Cir. 2008) ( “[ T ] he jurors wer e 8 the sole judge s of cre dibilit y and wer e fre e to discredit her testimony and reje ct her g ood faith defe nse.”)

.
4pr ed om in an tl y m en ta l in co mp o si ti on , it is freq ue nt ly ne ces sa ry to res or t to

ci rcu m st an ti al ev id en ce to pr ov e it s e l e men t s

. . . . [I]t is no t en ou gh to di sc ard a
jury’ s fin di ng of a co ns pi racy si m pl y be cau se th e go ve rn m en t di d no t pr es en t di rect

ev id en ce of an il le ga l ag reem en t.” Rat he r, th e m eet in g of th e cri m in al m in ds “ m ay 9

be in ferr ed fro m th e rel at io ns hi p of th e pa rti es , th ei r ov ert act s an d co nc ert of act io n,

a nd th e to ta li ty of th ei r co nd uc t.” Co ns id eri ng th e Hy at ts ’ cl os e pe rs on al an d 1 0

pr of es si on al rel at io ns hi p an d th ei r ad m is si on to th e nu m ero us ov ert act s of de cep ti on

– e ve n i f no t t o a cri m in al m en s re a – th e p ro se cu ti on pre se nt ed ev id en ce s uf fic ie nt

fo r a rea so na bl e jury to c on vi ct

.
AFFIR MED.

United States v. Pineiro , 389 F.3d 1359, 1369 (11th Cir. 2 0 0 4 ) (c i t at i ons and quotation 9 marks omitted).

United States v. Sc hwartz , 541 F.3d 1331, 1361 ( 11th Cir. 2008). 1 0

5