## F I LED United States C ourt of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### Jan u ary11,2007 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt PU BL I SH UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

T E N T H C IR C U IT
UNI T E D S T AT E S OF AM E RI CA ,

Pl ai nt i ff- A ppel l ee, v. N o. 05- 1428 C A R L W IL L IA M P U R S L E Y , J R .,

D e fe n d a n t-A p p e llan t. AP P EA L F ROM THE UNI TE D S TA TE S DI S TR I CT COURT

F OR THE DI S TR I CT OF COLORA DO ( D. C. NO . 0 3 - CR- 0 0 4 1 5 - REB) M a r c i A. Gi l l i g a n , Ri c h i l a n o & Gi l l i g a n , P. C. , Den v e r , Col o r a d o , ( Pa tr i c k L. R i dl eyand R obertT . Fi s hm an, R i dl eyM cG r eevyW ei s z P. C . , D enver , C ol or ado, w ith h e r o n th e b rie f

) fo r D e fe n d a n t-A p p e llan t. J ames C. M urphy , A s s i s t antU ni t ed St at es A t t or ney( W i l l i am J. L eone, U ni t ed S tate s A tto rn e y , an d M a tth e w T . K irsc h , A ss ista n t U n tied S tate s A tto rn e y , w ith hi m on t he br i ef) , O ffi ce of t he U ni t ed St at es A t t orney , D enver , C ol or ado, for Pl ai nt i ff- A ppel l ee. B efo re M UR P HY , AN DE RS ON , and TY M KOVI CH , C i rcui tJudg es. TY M KOVI CH , C i r cui tJ udge.-2- I . I nt roduct i on W hi l e j ai l ed i n a C ol or ado s t at e pr i s on, C ar l W i l l i am P ur s l eyw as i ndi ct ed byt he U ni t ed St at es fort ax fr aud. T he governm ental l eged thatPur s l eyfi l ed fr audul entt ax r etur ns on behal f of hi m s el f and otherpr i s oner s and r ece i ved r efund pa ym ent s as a r es ul t . H e w as s ubs equent l yconvi ct ed bya fe der al j uryon o n e c o u n to f

c o n s p i r a c yt o d e f

r a u d t h e Un i t e d S t a t e s , i n v i o l a t i o n o f 1 8 U. S . C. § 3 71 , and t w o co un t s of ai ding and abett i ng t he p repar at i on of fal se t ax returns, in v io la tio n o f

2 6 U .S .C . § 7 2 0 6 (2 ). O n appea l , Pur s l eyr ai s es fourcl ai m s chal l engi ng hi s convi ct i on and se n ten c e . T h e d istric t co u rt e rre d b y(1 ) fa ili n g to d ism iss th e c a se d u e to v io latio n s o f

th e In ter sta te A g re e m e n t o n D e tain e rs A c t; (2 ) re f u sin g to se v e r h is trial f ro m th a t o f

a c o -d e fe n d a n t; (3 ) a llo w in g th e ju ryv e rd ict to sta n d d e sp ite i n s u ffi c i e n te v i d e n c e t o s u p p o r tt h e c o n s p i r a c y c o n v i c t i o n a n d , r e l a t e d l y, contr i but i ng t o j ur yconfus i on byi m pr oper l yi ns truct i ng them on t he cons pi r acy count ; and ( 4) vi ol at i ng t he D oubl e J eopar dyC l aus e w hi l e i m pos i ng cons ecut i ve s e n te n c e s fo r d iffe re n t c ri m e s th a t w e re s u p p o rt e d b yth e s a m e e v id e n c e . T aki ng j ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 18 U . S. C . § 3742( a) and 28 U . S. C . § 1291, w e A F F I R M. I I . Fac t ualBackg r ound C ar l Pur s l eyand hi s co- defe ndant , W i l l i am W ar del l , w er e i ndi ct ed byt he U ni t ed St at es on A ugus t20, 2003, on var i ous count s of t ax fr aud. Pur s l eyw as s peci fi cal l ychar ged w i t h cons pi r i ng t o defr aud the I nt ernal R evenue Ser vi ce by-3-

a ss istin g in th e p re p a ra tio n o f fa lse tax re tu rn s fo r th e p u rp o se o f f ra u d u len tly obt ai ni ng r efunds bas ed on the Ear ned I ncome C r edi t . A tthe t i m e the fe der al i ndi ctm entw as fi l ed, Pur s l eyand W ar del l w er e pr i s oner s of C ol or ado, s ervi ng s e n te n c e s o n p ri o r c o n v ic tio n s . T o obt ai n hi s avai l abi l i t yfortr i al , the U ni t ed St at es l odged a de t ai ner agai ns tPur s l eyon A ugus t21, 2003, and obt ai ned cus t odybyfi l i ng a w r i tof hab eas corpus ad pr os equendum o n O c to b e r 9 , 2 0 0 3 . P u rsle yw a s tra n sfe rre d to anotherfac i l i t yunderfede r al contr ol w her e he r emai ned fortw enty - tw o m onths w hi l e he a w ai t ed tr i al on t he t ax fr aud cha r ges . D ur i ng thatper i od, C ol or ado file d a n e w in d ic tm e n t a g a in s t P u rs le yin a n u n re la te d c ri m in a l c a s e . A cc o rdin g ly , C o lorad o so u g h t his pres en ce in state co u rtfo r pre li m inary proceed i ng s. O n at l eastt w o o ccasi on s, the st at e fi l ed w ri t s of ha beas co rpus ad pr os equendum t o obt ai n t empora rycus t odyt o es cortPur s l eyt o court . E ach t i m e, he w as r etur ned t o fede r al pr i s on the s ame day . A tno t i m e w as Pur s l eyr eturned t o a C ol or ado corr ect i ons fac i l i t yt o r es um e s ervi ng hi s i ni t i al s t at e pr i s on s ent ence . O n A p ril 2 5 , 2 0 0 5 , P u rsle ym o v e d to d ism iss th e fe d e ra l in d ictm e n t w ith pr ej udi ce on the gr ound t hatt he U ni t ed St at es had vi ol at ed the “a nt i - s hut t l i ng” pr ovi s i on of the I nt er s t at e A gr eementon D et ai ner s A cti n r el eas i ng hi m t o the t empora r ycus t odyof C ol or ado. T he di s tr i ctcour tdeni ed hi s m ot i on, and the cas e pr ocee ded t o t r i al . B efor e i tbegan, Pur s l eym oved t o have hi s tr i al s ever ed-4-

f ro m th a t o f

h is c o -d e fe n d a n t, alleg in g th a t th e yw o u ld p re se n t an tag o n istic d e fe n se s. T h e d istric t co u rt d e n ied th is m o tio n a s w e ll. O n M ay25, 2005, a fe der al j uryconvi ct ed Pur s l eyon one countof cons pi r acyt o defr aud the U ni t ed St at es and tw o count s of ai di ng and abe t t i ng t he pr epar at i on of fa l s e t ax r etur ns . H e w as s ent ence d t o 96 m onths i ncar cer at i on— 60 m ont hs i m pr i s onm enton the cons pi r acycountt o be s erved cons ecut i vel yw i t h 36- m ont h concurr ents ent ence s foreac h countof ai di ng and a b e ttin g . H e a p p e a ls b o th h is c o n v ic tio n a n d s e n te n c e . I I I . D i s cus s i on Pur s l eyr ai s es fouri s s ues on appea l . W e addr es s eac h i n tur n. A . I nt ers t at e A gree m ent on D et ai ners Pur s l eyar gues t he U ni t ed St at es vi ol at ed the I nt er s t at e A gr eementon D et ai ner s ( I A D orA gr eement ) , 18 U . S. C . A pp. § 2 [her ei naft erI A D ] ; C ol o. R ev. St at . § 24- 60- 501 ( 2004) , byt r ans ferr i ng hi m fr om a s t at e t o fede r al pr i s on and th e n a llo w in g sta te o fficia ls to e sc o rt h im to sta te p ro c e e d in g s o n n e w sta te char ges w hi l e he w as i n fede r al cus t ody . A ccor di ngl y , he cont ends t hatt he d istric t co u rt e rre d b yfa ili n g to d ism iss th e fe d e ra l in d ictm e n t an d th a t w e sh o u ld r ever s e hi s convi ct i on. T he I A D cr eat es among i t s contr act i ng par t i es uni form pr ocedur es for l odgi ng and exe cut i ng a det ai ner , “a l egal or dert hatr equi r es a St at e i n w hi ch an i ndi vi dual i s curr ent l yi m pr i s oned t o hol d thati ndi vi dual . . . s o thathe maybe t r i ed bya di ffe r entSt at e fora di ffe r entcr i m e. ” A labam a v. B oz em an , 53 3 U. S.T h e U n ite d S ta te s a n d C o lo ra d o a re p a rt y“ S ta te s ” to th e A g re e m e n t. 1 IA D § 2 ; C o lo . R e v . S ta t. § 2 4 -6 0 -5 0 1 (2 0 0 6 ), -5- 1 4 6 , 1 4 8 (2 0 0 1 ). F o r p u rp o se s o f th e IA D , the sta te in w h ich a p riso n e r is init ial lyserv ing a se n tenc e is classified as th e “ sen d ing stat e” (he re, C o lorad o ), and the s t at e thats ubs equent l yi ndi ct s the pr i s onerand obt ai ns cus t odyi s the “r ece i vi ng s t at e” ( her e, t he U ni t ed St at es ) . I A D , A r t . I I ( b) –( c) . T he A gr eement 1 “pr ovi des forexpedi t i ous del i veryof the pr i s onert o the r ece i vi ng St at e fort r i al p rio r to th e ter m in a tio n o f h is s e n ten c e in th e se n d in g S tate ” a n d “ se e k s to m i ni m i ze the cons equenti nt errupt i on of the pr i s oner ’ s ongoi ng pr i s on t erm . ” B o z e m a n , 533 U . S. at148. T he A gr eementi s bas ed on the pr emi s e thatpr i s on tre a tm e n t an d re h a b ili tatio n p ro g ra m s a re n e g a tiv e lyim p a c ted w h e n a p riso n e r is i ndi ct ed and tr ans ferr ed t o a new j ur i s di ct i on and then r eturned t o the or i gi nal p la c e o f im p ri s o n m e n t b e fo re tr ia l is h a d o n th e n e w c h a rg e s . See IA D , A rt . I. T he A gr eementauthor i zes t r ans ferof a pr i s onerfr om a s endi ng s t at e t o a recei ving st at e as foll ow s: T he appr opr i at e offi cer of t he j ur i s di ct i on i n w hi ch an untr i ed i ndi ctm ent

. . . i s pendi ng [i . e. , t he r ece i vi ng s t at e] s hal l be ent i t l ed t o have a pr i s oner agai ns tw hom he has l odged a de t ai ner a n d w h o is s ervi ng a t erm of im p riso n m e n t in a n y p a rty S tate m a d e a v a ilab le in a c c o rd a n c e w ith a rticle V ( a ) h e r e o f u p o n p r e s e n t a t i o n o f a wr i t t e n r e q u e s t fo r t e mpo r a rycus t ody oravai l abi l i t yt o t he appr opr i at e author i t ies o f the St at e i n w hi ch the p ri so n er is i n ca rce rated [i. e, th e se n d ing stat e]. Id
. at A rt . IV (a). T h e A g ree m en t pro tects th e p ri so n er f rom ex ce ssive tr an sfe rs t hroug h the so- cal l ed “an t i -s hu t t l i ng ” provis i on , w hich st at es,T he governm entcont ends t hatbeca us e C ol or ado onl yfi l ed a w r i tof 2 habea s corpus ad pr os equendum t o obt ai n cus t odyoverPur s l eyfr om t he fe der al g o v e rn m e n t, th e IA D is n o t im p lica ted . W h ile th e S u p re m e C o u rt h a s h e ld th a t a w ri tof h abeas co rpus ad pr os equendum b yits e lf d o e s n o t tr ig g e r t h e IA D , s ee Mau ro , 43 6 U . S . at34 9, t he IA D w as alr eady tr i gger ed byt he fe der al governm ent ’ s ( i . e. , t he r ece i vi ng s t at e’ s ) act i ons i n thi s cas e and the ant i - s hut t l i ng pr ovi s i on i s t hus appl i cabl e. T he governm ent ’ s ar gum entw oul d onl yhave re le v a n c e if th e fe d e ra l g o v e rn m e n t w a s th e s e n d in g s ta te . -6- If trial is n o t h a d o n a n yin d ic tm e n t . . . co n tem p late d h e re b yp rio r to th e p riso n e r’s b e in g re tu rn e d to th e o rig in a l p lac e o f im p riso n m e n t to ar t i cl e V ( e) her eof, s uch i ndi ctm ent. . . s hal l not be of a nyfur therfor ce o r e ffe c t, an d th e c o u rt sh a ll en te r a n o rd e r d ism iss in g th e sa m e w ith pr ej udi ce. Id. atA r t . I V ( e) . A ccor di ngl y , byi t s expr es s t erm s , the I A D i s vi ol at ed under tw o c o n d iti o n s— w h e n a p riso n e r, w h o is s e rv in g a se n ten c e in th e se n d in g sta te and i ndi ct ed byt he r ece i vi ng s t at e, i s ( 1) tr ans ferr ed t o the r ece i vi ng s t at e bas ed o n its lo d g in g a d e ta in e r a g a in s t h im a n d re q u e s tin g c u s to d y , id
. atA r t . I V ( a) , and t hen ( 2) r etur ned t o t he “or i gi nal pl ace of i m pr i s onm ent ” befor e s t andi ng tr i al on th e u n tr ie d in d ic tm e n t, id
. at A rtIV (e). In th is c a se , the first c o n d iti o n o f a n IA D v io latio n w a s c lea rlym e t. W h ile s ervi ng hi s s ent ence i n C ol or ado s t at e pr i s on, Pur s l eyw as i ndi ct ed bythe U ni t ed St at es , w hi ch l odged a de t ai neragai ns thi m and, bym eans of a w r i tof habe as corpus ad pr os equendum , obt ai ned cus t odyand tr ans ferr ed hi m t o a fe der al fa c ility. See United S tates v. Mau ro , 436 U . S. 340, 348 ( 1978) ( hol di ng the combi nat i on of l odgi ng a det ai nerand obt ai ni ng cus t odybym eans of a w r i tof hab eas corpus ad pr os equendum tr igg ers a p p li ca ti o n o f th e IA D ). 2-7-

T h e p r i n c i p a l i s s u e h e r e i s wh e th e rth e s e c o n d c o n d i t i o n o f a n I AD vi ol at i on w as m et . T he pr os ecut i on ar gues Pur s l eyw as never“r etur ned t o the or i gi nal pl ace of i m pr i s onm ent ” w i thi n the meani ng of the I A D beca us e he w as nevers entback t o a C ol or ado pr i s on. Pur s l eyobj ect s t o thi s l i t er al r eadi ng of the t extand ar gues t hatt he ant i - s hut t l i ng pr ovi s i on be i nt erpr et ed t o i ncl ude anytype o f c u s to d yo v e r t h e p ri s o n e r b yth e s e n d in g s ta te . Pur s l eyar gues t hat t he Supr eme C ourti n A labam a v. B oz em an i nt erpr et ed t he I A D t o r equi r e di s m i s s al of pendi ng char ges bythe r ece i vi ng s t at e w hen a pr i s oneri s pl ace d i n t he cus t odyof the s endi ng s t at e, even i n ci r cumst ance s w h e re a p ri s o n e r’ s c u s to d yis o f s h o rt d u ra tio n . I n t hatcas e, the pr i s oner , B ozeman, w as s ervi ng t i m e i n a fe der al pr i s on w h e n A la b a m a in d ic te d h im o n a n u n re la te d c ri m e . B oz em an , 5 3 3 U .S . a t 1 5 1 . A l abama l odged a de t ai neragai ns thi m and s ubs equent l yobt ai ned cus t odyover h im . T h e sta te th e n tra n sp o rte d h im a p p ro x im a tely8 0 m iles to a c o u n tyjail, w h e re h e s p e n t th e n ig h t b e fo re a p p e a ri n g fo r h is a rr a ig n m e n t th e n e x t m o rn in g . H e w as r etur ned t o fede r al pr i s on thateveni ng and r es um ed s ervi ng hi s or i gi nal s ent ence . A tt h e o u t s e t , t h e S u p r e m e C o u r ta c k n o w l e d g e d , “ A l a b a m a d o e s n o td e n y a viol at i on of A rt i cl e IV (e) as lit e ra lly in terp re ted , fo r it co n c e d e s th a t it s o fficia ls ‘return ed ’ B o ze m an to h is ‘ o ri g inal p lace o f im p ri so n m en t, ’ be fo re B o ze m an ’s countycourt‘ t r i al ’ w as ‘ had. ’ ” Id. at 15 2 (em p h asis in o ri g inal). T h e C o u rt r ej ect ed A l abama’ s ar gum entt hats pendi ng one ni ghti n s t at e pr i s on cons t i tut edPur s l ey ’ s r el i ance on Uni t ed Stat es v. Kel l ey , 3 0 0 F . S u p p . 2 d 2 2 4 ( D. 3 M ass. 20 03 ), i s equall yun avail i ng con si deri ng t he d i stri ctcou rti n thatcase al so fo u n d th e re c e iv in g sta te s h u ttl e d th e d e fe n d a n t b a c k to th e se n d in g sta te to re s u m e s e rv in g h is o ri g in a l s e n te n c e p ri o r t o tr ia l b e in g h a d . Id
. a t 2 3 3 . T h is is n o t th e c a s e h e re . -8- o n ly a “ d e m in im u s ” o r “ te c h n ic a l” v io la tio n . Id
. at 15 3 . R athe r, the C o u rt re a s o n e d , “ every p r i s o n e ra r r i v a l i n th e r e c e i v i n g S t a t e , w h e th e rfo l l o w e d b y a verybr i ef s t ayora veryl ong s t ayi n the r ece i vi ng St at e, tr i gger s I V ( e) ’ s ‘ no r etur n’ r equi r ement . ” Id. a t 1 5 4 (e m p h a sis in o rig in a l). In o th e r w o rd s, A rticle IV (e) ’s anti -s hu t t l i ng provis i on app l i es w hen ever a pr i s oneri s pr ovi ded t o a r ece i vi ng s t at e pur s uantt o a det ai ner . T he l ength of the pr i s oner ’ s cus t odybyt he re c e iv in g s ta te h a s n o b e a ri n g o n th e o p e ra tio n o f th e “ n o re tu rn ” re q u ir e m e n t. A ccor di ngl y , t he C our tconcl uded, the A l abama char ges s houl d have be en di s m i s s ed. Pur s l ey ’ s att empt t o compar e hi s cas e t o B oz em an i s unp ers uasi ve b ecause h e w a s n o t “ re tu rn e d to [ h is ] o ri g in a l p la c e o f im p ri s o n m e n t” u n d e r A rt ic le IV (e ). I n B oz em an , the p ri so n er w as se rvin g ti m e in a fe d era l pen it en ti aryu n d er a fede r al s ent ence . A ft erhi s s hor tfor ayi nt o s t at e courtand pr i s on pur s uantt o a d e tain e r, B o z e m a n w a s re tu rn e d to th e sa m e fe d e ra l p riso n to re su m e se rv in g h is or i gi nal fede r al s ent ence . T he Supr eme C our thas hel d thatthi s i s a cl ear vi ol at i on of A r t i cl e I V ( e) . I n t hi s cas e, Pur s l eyw as neverr eturned t o C ol or ado 3 to re su m e se rv in g h is o rig in a l sta te s e n ten c e . In ste a d , h is o n lytrip b a c k in to C ol or ado s t at e j ur i s di ct i on w as t o ans w era thi r d se t o f sta te c h a rg e s u n re late d to-9-

hi s or i gi nal s ent ence orfede r al char ges . H e neve rw as tr ans ferr ed t o the C ol or ado D e p a rtm e n t o f

C o rre c tio n s to b e g in a n e w h is s e rv ice o f h is o rig in a l sta te sent ence. Furtherm ore, t he o ne-dayexcu rs i on t o the C olor ado st at e cou rtho use forarr ai gnm entw as onl ybychanc e i n C ol or ado, the s t at e of hi s or i gi nal i m pr i s onm ent . I f anyot hers t at e, s uch as W y om i ng, had as ked the fe der al governm entt o pr ovi de Pur s l eyfora one- dayarr ai gnm entunders i m i l ar ci r cumst ance s , w e do nots ee how thi s w oul d have vi ol at ed the ant i - s hut t l i ng p ro v is io n . W e not e thatouri nt erpr et at i on i s s uppor t ed bythe pl ai n l anguage of the ant i - s hut t l i ng pr ovi s i on and the I A D ’ s purpos e. Fi r s t , A r t i cl e I V ( e) appl i es w hen t he p ri soner i s “ r et ur ned. . . to th e o rig in a l p lac e o f im p riso n m e n t p u rsu a n t to art i cl e V (e) . ” IA D (em ph asi s added ). A rt i cl e V (e) provides that, “[a]tthe earl i est pr act i cal t i m e cons onantw i t h t he purpos es of thi s agr eement , the pr i s oners hal l be r etur ned t o t he s endi ng St at e. ” Id
. R ead t ogether , thes e w or ds s ugges tthatthe p riso n e r m u st b e se n t back t o r ecomm ence s ervi ng hi s or i gi nal s ent ence t o tr i gger th e a n ti-sh u ttl in g p ro v isio n . U n d e r A rticle V (e ), a p riso n e r sh o u ld b e re tu rn e d to t he s endi ng s t at e t o r es um e hi s or i gi nal s ent ence fol l ow i ng the di s pos i t i on of the r ece i vi ng s t at e’ s t r i al . A r t i cl e V ( e) , on i t s fac e, does notcont empl at e other r eas ons t o s end a pr i s onerback t o t he s endi ng s t at e. Second, t he purpos e of the I A D ’ s ant i - s hut t l i ng pr ovi s i on i s t o m i ni m i ze t he unce r t ai nt i es at t endantw i t h out s t andi ng char ges w hi ch i nt er fer e w i th a pr i s oner ’ s r ehabi l i t at i on and tr eatm entpr ogr ams and t o encour age the expe di t i ousA r ece i vi ng s t at e mustcomm ence t r i al on untr i ed i ndi ctm ent s w i thi n one 4 h u n d red tw en tyd ay s fro m the a rri v al of the p ri so n er. I A D , A rt . IV (c). T h e g o v e r n me n ta l t e r n a t i v e l ya r g u e s t h a tP u r s l e ywa i v e d h i s I AD 5 a rg u m e n t b yfa ilin g to ra is e it b e fo re th e p re -t ri a l m o tio n s d e a d lin e h a d p a s s e d . P u rs le yre s p o n d s b yc o n te n d in g th a t th is is s u e is ju ri s d ic tio n a l a n d n o n -w a iv a b le . W e had notaddr es s ed w hethervi ol at i ons of the I A D cons t i tut e j ur i s di ct i onal cl ai m s on di r ectappea l . N evert hel es s , w e have s t at ed, “A bs ents peci al (continued...) -10- a n d o rd e rl yd is p o s itio n o f s u c h c h a rg e s . See I A D , A r t . I . A s w e have s ai d, C ongr es s di d notw antpr i s oner s t o “have pr ogr ams of tr eatm entand r ehabi l i t at i on obs t ruct ed bynum er ous abs ence s i n connec t i on w i th s ucce s s i ve pr ocee di ngs r el at ed t o pendi ng char ges i n anotherj ur i s di ct i on. ” Uni t ed Stat es v. Wi ls on , 719 F. 2d 1491, 1494 ( 10t h C i r . 1983) . T he mer e t empora rytr ans ferof a pr i s onert o a di ffe r entj ur i s di ct i on t o ans w erpendi ng char ges w hi l e i n the cus t odyof a r ece i vi ng s t at e does noti m pl i cat e thes e conc erns s o l ong as i tdoes not i m perm i s s i bl y l engthen a pr i s oner ’ s s t ay i n the r ece i vi ng s t at e. W her e a tr ans fer 4 is o f sh o rt d u ra tio n a n d d o e s n o t in ter ru p t trial p ro c e e d in g s in th e re c e iv in g sta te i n vi ol at i on of the I A D ’ s ot herpr ovi s i ons , as i s t he ca s e her e, a pr i s oners pends no addi t i onal t i m e aw ayfr om t he s endi ng s t at e and, t hus , t her e ca n be no i m pact on a pr i s oner ’ s r ehabi l i t at i ve pr ogr ams and tr eatm enti n the s endi ng s t at e. O n t he ot herhand, t he expe di t i ous r es ol ut i on of untr i ed cha r ges i n a di ffe r ent ju risd ictio n , su c h a s th e th ird se t o f C o lo ra d o c h a rg e s P u rsle yfa c e d , is f u lly c o n s is te n t w ith th e p u rp o s e s o f th e IA D . F o r th e se re a so n s, w e c o n c lu d e th a t th e IA D ’s a n ti-sh u ttl in g p ro v isio n is nott r i gger ed byt he ci r cumst ance s pr es ent ed her e. 5(...continued) 5 ci r cumst ance s , vi ol at i ons of the [I A D ] ar e notgr ounds forcol l at er al att ack on a fe d era l con v ict ion an d sen tenc e” b ec au se “ ri g h ts created b ythe [ IA D ] are s t atut or y , notfundament al , cons t i tut i onal , orj ur i s di ct i onal i n natur e. ” G r eathous e v. Uni t ed Stat es , 6 5 5 F . 2 d 1 0 3 2 , 1 0 3 4 ( 1 0 th Ci r . 1 9 8 1 ) . Be c a u s e we have c oncl uded the governm ent ’ s conductdi d noti m pl i cat e the I A D i n thi s cas e, w e n e e d n o t a n s w e r w h e th e r v io la tio n s o f its p ro v is io n s m a yb e w a iv e d . -11- B . T ri al Severance Pur s l eynextar gues t he di s tr i ctcourtcomm i t t ed r ever s i bl e err orbyfai l i ng t o gr anthi s m ot i on t o s everhi s t r i al fr om thatof hi s co- defe ndant , W endel W ar del l . H e cont ends s ever ance w as nece s s arybeca us e the tw o defe ndant s had pl anned t o pr es entant agoni s t i c defens es and the j oi ntt r i al pr ecl uded hi m fr om f u lly p u rs u in g h is th e o ry o f d e fe n s e . W hen cons i der i ng a mot i on fors ever ance , a tr i al courtengage s i n a thr ee st ep inquiry . F i rs t , i tm ustdeterm i ne w hethert he d efen ses pr esent ed are “so ant agoni s t i c thatt heyar e mut ual l yexcl us i ve. ” Un itedS ta tes v . P e v e to , 881 F. 2d 8 4 4 , 8 5 7 (10 th C ir . 1 9 8 9 ). S ec o n d , b ec au se “ [m ]utu all yan tago n ist ic de fe n ses a re notpr ej udi ci al pers e, ” a de fenda ntm us tfur thers how “a s er i ous r i s k thata j oi nt t r i al w oul d compromi s e a s peci fi c tr i al r i ght. . . orpr eventt he j ur yfr om m aki ng a r el i abl e j udgm entaboutgui l tori nnocenc e. ” Zaf i r o v. Uni t ed Stat es , 50 6 U. S. 534, 539 ( 1993) . T hi r d, i f the fi r s tt w o fac t or s ar e met , t he tr i al courtexer ci s es i t s di s cr et i on and “w ei gh[s ] t he pr ej udi ce t o a part i cul ardefe ndantcaus ed by j oi nderagai ns tt he obvi ous l yi m por t antcons i der at i ons of ec onom yand expe di t i on i n j udi ci al admi ni s t r at i on. ” P e v e to , 8 8 1 F . 2 d at 85 7 . W h ere the tri al co u rtT he di s t r i ctcour tfound thatPur s l ey ’ s and W ar del l ’ s defe ns es w er e not 6 m utual l yexcl us i ve. D i s t . O r der , vol . I , doc. 643, at2–3. I n doi ng s o, w e bel i eve (continued...) -12- ul t i m at el ydeni es s ever ance , i t s deci s i on w i l l be r ever s ed onl yw her e the d e fe n d a n t h a s d e m o n s tr a te d a n a b u s e o f d is c re tio n . Uni t ed Stat es v. Hayes , 861 F . 2 d 1 2 2 5 , 1 2 3 1 (10 th C ir . 1 9 8 8 ). A ccor di ng t o Pur s l ey , hi s t heoryof defens e att r i al w as t hathe neve r p re p a re d o r a ss iste d in th e p re p a ra tio n o f th e re lev a n t tax re tu rn s. H e h o p e d to p e rsu a d e th e ju ryth a t (1 ) a lth o u g h f u n d s w e re d e p o site d in h is a c c o u n t an d sp e n t, ( 2) he w as notaw ar e of how t he moneyarr i ved, ( 3) he di d nothave a ny know l edge of

t ax r etur ns fi l ed i n hi s name, nor( 4) w as he eve rempl oy ed by C im m a ro n F a rm s , th e c o m p a n yto w h ic h h is in c o m e w a s a ttr ib u te d o n th e re tu rn s . W ar del l ’ s defe ns e, on t he otherhand, w as t hatt he t ax form s w er e l egi t i m at e— t hat Pur s l eyhad part i ci pat ed i n t hei rpr epar at i on, had i ndeed be en empl oy ed by C im m a ro n F a rm s, a n d w a s p ro p e rlye n tit led to re c e ip t o f E a rn e d In c o m e C re d it funds . T hus , w hi l e Pur s l eym er el yar gued no cr i m e w as comm i t t ed by h im , W ar del l m ai nt ai ned no cr i m e w as comm i t t ed a t a ll . A p p ly in g th e se fa c to rs, w e c o n c lu d e th e d istric t co u rt d id n o t ab u se its di s cr et i on i n decl i ni ng t o s evert he tr i al . E ven though Pur s l eycoul d es t abl i s h t hat th e p a ir’s d e fe n se s w e re m u tu a llye x c lu siv e , w e fin d n o a c tu a l p reju d ice to P u rs le yu n d e r t h e s e c o n d fa c to r. W e a re sa tisfied th a t P u rsle y ’s a n d W a rd e ll’s d e fe n se s w e re su fficie n tly e x c lu siv e a n d a n tag o n istic u n d e r th e first fa c to r. D e fe n se s a re m u tu a lly 6(...continued) 6 t hatt he di s t r i ctcourtconfl at ed the fi r s t“mut ual l yexcl us i ve” fact orand the s econd “ pr ej udi ce” fac t or . W e fi nd thatthe di s tr i ctcour t ’ s anal y s i s i s bet t er p la c e d u n d e r c o n s id e ra tio n s o f p reju d ic e , ra th e r t h a n o n a n ta g o n is m .

-13- ant agoni s t i c i f “the conf l i ctbetw een c odefe ndant s ’ defe ns es [i s ] s uch thatthe j ur y , i n or dert o bel i eve the cor e of one defe ns e, m us tnece s s ar i l ydi s bel i eve the cor e of the other . ” Uni t ed Stat es v. Li nn , 3 1 F . 3 d 9 8 7 , 9 9 2 (10 th C ir . 1 9 9 4 ). In otherw ords, defe nd ants m ustshow that “the acc eptance of o ne p arty ’s defe nse w oul d t end t o pr ecl ude the ac qui t t al of the other , orthatthe gui l tof one defe ndantt ends t o es t abl i s h t he i nnocenc e of the other . ” P e v e to , 881 F. 2d at857 ( hol di ng m utual l yexcl us i ve defens es w her e one de fenda ntcl ai m ed t o be pr epar i ng t o be an i nform antand i nvi t ed the otherdefe ndant , a purpor t ed drug deal er , t o hi s hous e t o gatheri nform at i on, w hi l e the otherdefe ndantcl ai m ed t o be in n o c e n tly a t th e h o u s e a n d h e ld a g a in s t h is w ill b yth e fir s t d e fe n d a n t) . A j ur ycoul d nots i m ul t aneous l ybel i eve Pur s l ey ’ s and W ar del l ’ s theor i es of defe ns e. Pur s l eyei t herw or ked atC i m m ar on Far m s orhe di d not . H e ei ther p arti cipa ted in the p rep ara ti o n an d fil ing o f tax return s o r he d id n o t. If the jury b e liev e d th a t P u rsle yh a d n o k n o w led g e o f th e tax re f

u n d s a n d h a d n o p a rt in C im m aro n F arm s, then itw o u ld n ec essa ri lyh av e to d isbe li ev e W ard ell ’s st o ry th a t h e a n d P u rsle yw e re leg iti m a telye n tit led to file ta x re f u n d s b a se d o n th e ir empl oym entbyC i m m ar on Far m s . Pur s l ey ’ s l egi t i m at e part i ci pat i on i n the C im m a ro n F a rm s e n te rp ri s e w a s a c o re e le m e n t o f W a rd e ll’ s d e fe n s e th e o ry. W i t houti t , W ar del l ’ s defe ns e w oul d s i m pl ycol l aps e, cas t i ng s er i ous doubt s on-14-

W a rd e ll’s c laim o f

in n o c e n c e . T h is is s im p lyn o t a c a se w h e re “ th e ju ryc o u ld have be l i eved a l l of D efe ndant s ’ theor i es and ac qui t t ed al l of them. ” See Uni t ed Stat es v. Li nn , 3 1 F . 3 d 9 8 7 , 9 9 2 (10 th C ir . 1 9 9 4 ) (find ing n o m u tual an tago n ism ). A ccordi ng l y , w e fi nd t hese de fenses are s uffi ci entl yantagon i st i c un der the fir st fa c to r. N evert hel es s , Pur s l eyhas fai l ed t o demonstr at e pr ej udi ce unde rthe s econd fa c to r. T o e sta b lish p reju d ice , a d e fe n d a n t m u st p o in t to a “ sp e c ific tria l rig h t” t hatw as compromi s ed ors how t he j uryw as “pr event [ed] . . . fr om m aki ng a r el i abl e j udgm entaboutgui l tori nnocenc e. ” Zafi ro , 5 0 6 U .S . at 5 3 9 ; see also United S tates v. McC l ure , 734 F. 2d 484, 488–89 ( 10th C i r . 1984) . Pur s l eyar gues p rejud ice m u st be p resu m ed b ec au se “ [w ]he n m u tuallyex clus ive d efen ses a re pr es ent ed ther e i s a cha nce thatt he j uryw i l l i nferfr om the conf l i ctthe gui l tof bot h par t i es . ” P e v e to , 8 8 1 F .2 d a t 8 5 7 . P u rsle yc o n ten d s th a t, on th is b a sis , h is defe ns e w as l es s l i kel yt o be s ucce s s ful i n a j oi nttr i al than a s ever ed tr i al and, b e c a u s e o f

th is , h e o p te d n o t to p re s e n t c e rt a in e v id e n c e a t tr ia l. W e ar e notper s uaded thatthi s al one w i l l cons t i tut e pr ej udi ce forpurpos es o f trial s e v e ra n c e . “[ I]t is w e ll se ttl e d th a t d e fe n d a n ts a re n o t en tit led to s ever ance m er el ybeca us e theym ayhave a bet t er chance o f a c q u itt a l in se p a ra te t r i al s . ” Zafi ro , 5 0 6 U .S . at 5 4 0 (e m p h a sis a d d e d ); see also McC l ure , 734 F. 2d at 4 8 8 (“ W e h a v e . . . h e ld th a t se v e ra n c e is n o t re q u ire d sim p lyb e c a u se se p a ra te t r i al s m i ghthave offer ed a be t t erchanc e foracqui t t al t o one orm or e of the acc us ed. ”) . D es pi t e thei rdi ffe r i ng theor i es of defens e, nothi ng pr event ed Pur s l eyE ven as s um i ng Pur s l eycoul d s ucce s s ful l ydemonstr at e pr ej udi ce, 7 s ever ance w oul d notbe compel l ed bec aus e “the t ai l or i ng of the r el i ef t o be gr ant ed, i f any , [i s l eft ] t o t he di s tr i ctcourt ’ s s ound di s cr et i on. ” Zafi ro , 50 6 U. S. a t 5 3 9 ; se e a lso Un itedS ta tes v . Sc o tt , 3 7 F .3 d 1 5 6 4 , 1 5 7 9

– 8 0 (1 0 th C ir . 1 9 9 4 ). “The deci s i on t o gr ants ever ance and or ders epar at e tr i al s i s w i thi n the s ound (continued...) -15- f ro m p re se n tin g e v id e n c e to su p p o rt h is th e o rye v e n if it w a s in c o n sis ten t w ith W ar del l ’ s defe ns e. S e c o n d , w h ile P u rsle y ’s th e o rym a ye sta b lish p reju d ice to W a rd e ll, it d id notnece s s ar i l ypr ej udi ce Pur s l ey ’ s defe ns e. A s the di s tr i ctcour tnot ed i n deny i ng th e s e v e ra n c e m o tio n , B o th P u rsle y ’s a n d W a r d e ll ’ s p ro p o se d th e o rie s o f d e fe n se ten d to exoner at e Pur s l eyof w r ongdoi ng. U nd er Purs l ey ’ s theory , he had no know l edge of

ori nvol vementi n the all eg ed s cheme t o defr aud the govern m en t byfi l i ng fal s e t ax r etur ns . U nderW ar del l ’ s theory , the t ax r etur ns fi l ed i n Pur s l ey ’ s name w er e notfr audul ent . I f the j urybel i eves ei t hert heory , i tcannotfi nd Pur s l eygui l tyof t ax fr aud. D i s t . O r der , vol . I , doc. 643, at2–3. Pur s l ey ’ s pr obl em i n the ca s e w as t he l ack of evi dence t o s uppor thi s t heoryof defens e, nothi s m i s for tune of tr i al w ith W a rd e ll. W e ther efor e agree w i th t he di s tr i ctcourtthatPur s l eycannot d e m o n stra te p reju d ice f ro m th e fa ilu re to se v e r th e trial. P u rsl eyalso arg u es th is co u rtsh o u ld n o t defer to the d istri ct co u rt ’s di s cr et i on her e bec aus e i tfai l ed t o expl i ci t l yengage i n the thi r d s t ep of our i nqui r y— w ei ghi ng pr ej udi ce t o the defendantagai ns tcons i der at i ons of j udi ci al e c o n o m y . Y e t, th e d istric t co u rt fo u n d n o p reju d ice a t all, lea v in g n o th in g to bal ance i n t hi s s t ep. 7(...continued) 7 di s cr et i on of the tr i al courtand i t s deci s i on w i l l notor di nar i l ybe r ever s ed i n the abs ence of a s t r ong s how i ng of pr ej udi ce. ” Hayes , 861 F. 2d at1231 ( i nt ernal quot at i ons om i t t ed) . Par t i cul ar l y“i n a cons pi r acyt r i al i ti s pr efe rr ed thatper s ons char ged t ogetherbe tr i ed t ogether . ” Uni t ed Stat es v. R ay , 370 F. 3d 1039, 1045 ( 10t h C i r . 2004) . C ons equent l y , “[t ] he defendant ’ s bur den t o s how an abus e of di s cr et i on i s a di ffi cul tone. ” Hay e s , 861 F. 2d at1231. -16- In sum , t he d i stri ctcou rt ’s decis i on i s suppo rt ed b ythe fa ct s of t his case a n d , in a n ye v e n t, do e s n o t w a rra n t a c o n c lu sio n th a t ita b u se d its d isc re tio n in tr y in g P u rs le ya n d W a rd e ll to g e th e r. C . Suffi ci ency of Evi dence and Jury I nst ruct i on on C onspi racy C harge P u rsle yn e x t cla im s th a t th e ju ry ’s v e rd ict o n th e c o n sp ira c yc o u n t sh o u ld b e o v e rtu rn e d b e c a u se (1 ) th e e v id e n c e w a s in su fficie n t to su p p o rt th e v e rd ict, a n d (2 ) t h e ju ry in s tru c tio n o n th e c o n s p ir a c yc h a rg e m is le d th e ju ry. (1) Suf f i ci ency of

the Evi dence
. W her e a de fenda ntcl ai m s t he evi dence w a s in su fficie n t to c o n v ict, w e e x a m in e th e re c o rd in th e lig h t m o st fa v o ra b le to t he governm entand w i l l onl yr ever s e w her e, bas ed on the di r ectand c irc u m sta n tial e v id e n c e p re se n ted a n d a ll rea so n a b le in fe re n c e s a n d c re d ib ili ty det erm i nat i ons dr aw n t her efr om , no r eas onabl e j urycoul d fi nd the defendant g u ilty b e y o n d a re a s o n a b le d o u b t. Un itedS ta tes v . Sm a ll , 423 F. 3d 1164, 1182 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 5 ); United S tates v. P edraza , 2 7 F .3 d 1 5 1 5 , 1 5 2 4 (1 0 th C ir . 1 9 9 4 ). T o demonstr at e cons pi r acy , t he governm entm us tpr ove “( 1) agr eement w i t h anotherper s on t o vi ol at e the l aw ; ( 2) know l edge of t he es s ent i al obj ect i ves of the cons pi r acy ; ( 3) know i ng and vol unt aryi nvol vement ; and ( 4) i nt er depende nce a m ong t he al l eged c o- cons pi r at or s . ” Uni t ed Stat es v.-17-

Johns on , 12 F. 3d 1540, 1545 ( 10th C i r . 1993) . T he cha r ges w er e bas ed on n in e tee n tax re tu rn s, in c lu d in g th re e filed in P u rsle y ’s n a m e , tw o filed in W a rd e ll’s n a m e , an d o n e filed in th e n a m e o f C im m a ro n F a rm s, th e o ste n sib le empl oy erof Pur s l ey( atl eas t , acc or di ng t o hi s t ax r etur ns ) . T he r emai ni ng t h i r t e e n r e tu r n s we r e fi l e d i n t h e n a me s o f n i n e i n ma t e s i mp r i s o n e d a tt h e s a me j ai l as Pur s l eyand W ar del l . Pur s l eycont ends , al though acknow l edgi ng the exi s t ence of evi dence t hathe had pa r t i ci pat ed i n s om e of the ac t s i ncl uded i n t he cons pi r acy , t he governm entneverthel es s di d notpr ove he “ part i ci pat ed i n the br oad, s i ngl e cons pi r acychar ged i n the i ndi ctm ent . ” A pl t . B r . at8. I ns t ead, he a rg u e s th e g o v e rn m e n t es tab lish e d h is c o n n e c tio n to W a rd e ll b u t fa iled to es t abl i s h anyconnec t i on w i t h t he r emai ni ng i nm at es . T hus , he conc l udes he cannotbe convi ct ed fora cons pi r acyt hati ncl udes t he fi l i ng of a llni net een t ax re tu rn s . Pur s l ey ’ s ar gum entappea r s t o be bas ed on one of t w o pr emi s es , both of w hich ar e fal se. O ne p ossi bil i t yi s that Pursl eyi s ass um i ng al l i nd i vidual s w ho se n a m e s w e r e l i s t e d o n t h e fa l s e t a x r e tu rn s w e r e c o - c o n s p i r a t o r s . A c c o r d i n g l y, b e c a u se th e e v id e n c e a t trial te n d e d to sh o w P u rsle y ’s a ss o c iatio n w ith W a rd e ll butnotw i t h t he ni ne i nm at es l i s t ed on the r emai ni ng t ax r etur ns , he coul d be ar gui ng t he governm entfai l ed t o pr ove hi s i nt er depende nce w i th thos e ni ne in d iv id u a ls. N e v e rth e les s, o n lyP u rsle ya n d W a rd e ll w e re c h a rg e d w ith cons pi r acy . T he fl aw her e i s t hatt he governm entdi d notal l ege a br oader-18-

cons pi r acyi nvol vi ng addi t i onal co- cons pi r at or s . I tonl ychar ged Pur s l eyand W ardel l w i t h co nspir i ng t o fil e nu m erous fal se r eturns i nv olvi ng otheri nm at es. A l t ernat i vel y , Pur s l ey ’ s ar gum entcoul d be thatdi r ectevi dence s how i ng a connec t i on betw een hi m s el f and e ach of the ni ne i nm at es l i s t ed on the t ax r etur ns w a s n e c e ss a ryfo r a c o n v ictio n . H e c o u ld b e c o n ten d in g th a t su c h a sh o w in g is r equi r ed fora r eas onabl e j ur yt o bel i eve hi s i nvol vementi n the pr epar at i on of the fi r s ts i x t ax r etur ns ( forw hi ch he c oncede s evi dence exi s t s ) ext ended t o the p rep ara ti o n o f th e re m ainin g thirteen tax re turn s. S u ch an arg u m en t i s w ron g . It i s w el l es t abl i s hed thatt he governm entneed notpr ove i t s cas e bydi r ectevi dence a lo n e . See, e. g. , Uni t ed Stat es v. Young , 954 F. 2d 614, 618 ( 10th C i r . 1992) ( “B eca us e cr i m i nal cons pi r aci es bythei rnatur e ar e gene r al l ys ecr et , oft en car eful l yconce al ed and mayeven be unar t i cul at ed, cons pi r acym aybe found b a s e d s o le ly u p o n c ir c u m s ta n tia l e v id e n c e .” ). H er e, t he governm entpr es ent ed di r ectevi dence of hi s part i ci pat i on i n the pr epar at i on of s om e of the fa l s e t ax r eturns ( e. g. , arr i val of funds i n hi s bank acc ount ) and ci r cumst ant i al evi dence of hi s part i ci pat i on i n the pr epar at i on of the r emai ni ng fal s e t ax r etur ns . T he fa ctthats om e evi dence w as ci r cumst ant i al does notbara r eas onabl e j ur yfr om convi ct i ng hi m as t o the cons pi r acyal l eged i n the in d ictm e n t. N o r w o u ld it b e n e c e ss a ryto p ro v e h e p e rfo rm e d o v e rt a c ts in fur t her ance of ea ch as pectof the cons pi r acys o l ong as the governm ent s uffi ci ent l ypr oved thathe cons pi r ed w i th W ar del l i n the t ax fr aud s cheme and at le a s t o n e o f

th e m e n g a g e d in o n e o v e rt a c t. See Uni t ed Stat es v. D ago , 441 F. 3d-19-

1238, 1242 n. 1 ( 10t h C i r . 2006) ( fi ndi ng thatthe overtactr equi r ementof 18 U .S .C . § 3 7 1 is s a tis fie d b y“ a n ya c t to e ffe c t th e o bje c t o f th e c o n s p ir a c y ” ). W e, acc or di ngl y , hol d t hata r eas onabl e j urycoul d have found Pur s l ey g u ilty o f

c o n s p ir a c yb e y o n d a re a s o n a b le d o u b t. (2) J u r y In s tr u c tio n s . Pur s l eyal s o ar gues t he di s tr i ctcourterr ed i n fai l i ng t o pr ovi de pr operj ur yi ns t ruct i ons on cons pi r acy . H e cont ends t he i ns truct i ons w er e conf

us i ng beca us e theyfai l ed t o di s t i ngui s h betw een the por t i on of the char ged cons pi r acyupon w hi ch the governm enthad di r ectevi dence ( pr epar at i on of t ax r etur ns l i s t i ng t he names and affi l i at es of Pur s l eyand W ar del l ) and the r emai nderof the cons pi r acyupon w hi ch the governm enthad onl yci r cumst ant i al e v i d e n c e ( t h e r e m a i n i n g t a x r e tu rn s l i s t i n g t h e n a m e s o f a d d i t i o n a l i n m a t e s ) . We per cei ve no i ncongruence betw een the cha r ged and pr oven cons pi r acy . L i kew i s e, w e fin d n o in stru c tio n is n e c e ss a ryto p a rse w h e th e r a p a rticu lar a lleg a tio n is s u p p o rt e d b yd ir e c t o r c ir c u m s ta n tia l e v id e n c e . In su m , the e v iden ce p rese n ted a t tri al w as su ffici en t t o su p p o rtthe ju ry ’s c o n v ictio n , an d th e ju ryw a s p ro p e rlyin stru c ted b yth e d istric t co u rt. D . D oubl e Je opa r dy Fi nal l y , Pur s l eyar gues t hathi s s ent ence i s unl aw ful beca us e the di s tr i ct cour tvi ol at ed the D oubl e J eopar dyC l aus e of the Fi fth A m endmentbyi m pos i ng cons ecut i ve s ent ence s on offe ns es t hatw er e pr oven byi dent i cal fac t s . T he C ons t i tut i on pr ovi des t hatno per s on s hal l “be s ubj ectt o the s ame offens e t o be tw ic e p u t in je o p a rd yo f life o r l im b .” U .S . C ONST . , amend. V . Pur s l eycont ends-20-

t hatt he s ame evi dence s uppor t s hi s convi ct i ons ( 1) forcons pi r acy , and ( 2) for ai di ng and abe t t i ng t he pr epar at i on of fa l s e t ax r eturns and, ther efor e, concl udes th a t “th e re is n o p ra c tica l o r su b sta n tiv e d istin c tio n ” b e tw e e n th e tw o c rim e s in t hi s cas e. A pl t . B r . at26–27. A t th e o u tse t, w e n o te th a t th is iss u e w a s n o t ra ise d b e lo w . B e c a u se th is ques t i on w as notpr es ent ed t o t he di s tr i ctcour t , w e appl ya pl ai n err ors t andar d of re v ie w . Un itedS ta tes v . B a ttl e , 289 F. 3d 661, 665 ( 10th C i r . 2002) . Pl ai n err or “occ ur s w hen ther e i s ( 1) err or , ( 2) t hati s pl ai n, w hi ch ( 3) affect s s ubs t ant i al r i ght s , and w hi ch ( 4) s er i ous l yaffect s t he fa i rnes s , i nt egr i ty , orpubl i c r eput at i on of j udi ci al pr ocee di ngs . ” Uni t ed Stat es v. Lopez
- F l or es , 444 F. 3d 1218, 1222 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ). Pur s l ey ’ s ar gum entfai l s t he fi r s ts t ep bec aus e the di s tr i ctcourtcomm i t t ed n o e rr o r. I n re v ie w in g a d o u b le je o p a rd yc la im , th e c a s e la w is c le a r, “[ W ]he re the s am e a ct or tran sac ti o n co n sti tutes a v iolati o n o f tw o d ist inct statu tory pr ovi s i ons , t he t es tt o be appl i ed [fordoubl e j eopar dypurpos es ] i s w hethereac h pr ovi s i on r equi r es pr oof of a n addi t i onal fac tw hi ch the otherdoes not . ” B l ockburgerv. Uni t ed Stat es , 2 8 4 U .S . 2 9 9 , 3 0 4 (1 9 3 2 ); Uni t ed Stat es v. Mal one , 222 F. 3d 1286, 1293 ( 10t h C i r . 2000) . W hen ea ch offens e r equi r es pr oof of a fac t notes s ent i al t o t he other , t he cha r ges ar e noti dent i cal and the ac cus ed ca n be char ged, t r i ed and c onvi ct ed of both offe ns es even though the cha r ges ar i s e outof th e s a m e a c ts . G olds m i th v. C heney , 4 4 7 F .2 d 6 2 4 , 6 2 7 (1 0 th C ir . 1 9 7 1 ).-21-

C ons equent l y , w e l ook t o t he el ement s of the tw o cr i m es forw hi ch Pur s l eyw as c o n v ic te d to d e te rm in e w h e th e r a d o u b le je o p a rd yv io la tio n e x is ts . C o n s p ir a c ya n d a id in g a n d a b e ttin g a c ri m e a re d iffe re n t c ri m in a l a c ts . G o ldsm ith , 447 F. 2d at628 ( fi ndi ng no doubl e j eopar dyvi ol at i on aft er pr os ecut i ons forbot h offe ns es ) . I ti s “w el l s et t l ed thatcomm i s s i on of a s ubs t ant i ve offens e and a cons pi r acyt o comm i ti tar e s epar at e cr i m es beca us e the es s ence of a c ons pi r acychar ge i s an agr eementt o comm i ta s ubs t ant i ve offens e. ” Uni t ed Stat es v. Johns on , 977 F. 2d 1360, 1371 ( 10th C i r . 1992) ( i nt ernal quot at i ons om i t t ed) . Pur s l eyw as char ged w i th cons pi r acyt o comm i tt ax fr aud w h ic h re q u ir e s “ a c o n s p ir a c y , a g re e m e n t, o r u n d e rs ta n d in g to v io la te th e la w . . . b yt wo o rmo r e p e r s o n s [ . ] ” I n s t ru c t i o n No . 1 9 , v o l . I , d o c . 6 7 6 . Th u s , th e c r i me o f c o n sp ira c yis c o m p lete d w h e n a n a g re e m e n t h a s b e e n m a d e a n d a n o v e rt a c t to f u rt h e r t h e u n la w f

u l d e s ig n h a s b e e n p e rfo rm e d . G o ldsm ith , 4 4 7 F .2 d a t 6 2 8 . T he s ubs t ant i ve offens e of a i di ng and abe t t i ng, i n contr as t , r equi r es no agr eement t o comm i tt he unl aw ful act . “The epi t om e of a n acc es s or ychar ge i s t o ai d, couns el , oras s i s tanotheri n t he comm i s s i on of a c r i m i nal act ; i tdoes notdepend upon an agr eementorcons pi r acyt o per form thatact . ” Id
. P u rsle yn o n e th e les s c o n ten d s th a t a c o n v ictio n fo r a id in g a n d a b e tti n g in t hi s cas e nec es s ar i l yr equi r es an agr eement . T hatcont ent i on i s i ncorr ect . T he el ement s of ai di ng and abe t t i ng r equi r e thatPur s l ey“ai ded i n, as s i s t ed i n, p ro c u re d , co u n se led , o r a d v ise d ” in th e fili n g o f tax re tu rn s; th a t th e re tu rn fa lse ly s t at ed mat er i al i nform at i on; and thatPur s l eyknew of the fa l s i tyand ac t edT he ent i r e j ur yi ns t ruct i on r ead, 8 I n or der t o s us t ai n i t s bur den of pr oof for the cr i m e of a i di ng and abe t t i ng t he pr epar at i on orpr es ent at i on of fa l s e t ax r etur ns against defendant PU R SL E Y as char ged i n C ount s 5 and 6 of t h e ind ict m ent , . . . the governm entm us tpr ove ea ch and a l l of the fol l ow i ng fi ve ( 5) es s ent i al e lem e n ts b e y o n d a re a so n a b le d o u b t: ( 1) T hat defe ndant PU R SL E Y ai ded i n, as s i s t ed i n, pr ocur ed, couns el ed, oradvi s ed the pr epar at i on orpr es ent at i on of a r eturn as des cr i bed i n the i ndi ctm ent. . . i n connec t i on w i th anym at t erar i s i ng underthe i nt ernal r evenue l aw s ; and ( 2) T hatt hi s r etur n fal s el ys t at ed i nform at i on as des cr i bed i n the i ndi ctm ent , . . . ; and (3 ) T h a t d e fe n d a n t P U R S L E Y k n e w th a t o n e o r m o re o f th e sta tem e n ts i n t he r etur n w as fal s e; and ( 4) T hatt he fa l s e s t at ementw as m at er i al ; and ( 5 ) T h a td e fe n d a n tP U R S L E Y a c t e d w i l l f u l l y. I ti s not nece s s ary t hat t he gover nm ent pr ove thatthe fa l s i tyorfr aud w as w ith th e k n o w led g e o r c o n se n t o f th e p e rso n a u th o riz e d o r r e q u ire d to p re s e n t s u c h re tu rn . In s tru c tio n N o . 3 1 , v o l. I , d o c . 6 7 6 . -22- w illf u lly. See In stru c tio n N o . 3 1 , v o l. I, d o c . 6 7 6 . N o n e o f th e se e lem e n ts 8 demand pr oof thathe ent er ed i nt o a know i ng agr eementw i th other s t o comm i tt he c ri m e . I n t hi s cas e, t he j ur yw as i ns truct ed that , “I ti s notnece s s aryt hatt he governm entpr ove thatt he fa l s i t yorfr aud [i nvol vi ng the t ax r eturn] w as w i th t he know l edge orcons entof the per s on author i zed orr equi r ed t o pr es ents uch r etur n. ” Id. T hi s i s cons i s t entw i th ourcas e l aw s t at i ng thatan agr eementi s not an el ementof the cr i m e of a i di ng and abe t t i ng. See, e. g. , P er ei r a v. Uni t ed S ta te s , 347 U . S. 1, 11 ( 1954) ( “ Ai d i n g , a b e t t i n g a n d c o u n s e l i n g a r e n o tt e r ms w h ich p resu p p o se th e e x ist en ce o f a n ag ree m en t. ”); G o ldsm ith , 447 F. 2d at628. W hi l e Pur s l eyand W ar del l m ayhave a ct ed i n conce r ti n comm i tt i ng t ax fr aud, t he-23-

convi ct i ons forai di ng and abe t t i ng do notnece s s ar i l yr equi r e agr eement . T he c o n v i c t i o n s , t h e r e fo r e , d o n o tru n a fo u l o f d o u b l e j e o p a r d y. I n s u m, e v e n t h o u g h P u r s l e y ’ s mu l t i p l e c o n v i c t i o n s a r o s e f r o m th e s a me c rim in a l co u rse o f

a c tio n , ea c h c rim e re q u ire d p ro o f o f a fa c t n o t re q u ire d to convi ctfort he othercr i m e. A cc o rdin g ly , w e find n o erro r i n the d istri ct co u rt ’s order of con secut i ve sentences for the d i fferentcri m es. I V . C oncl usi on F o r th e fo reg o ing rea so n s, P u rsl ey ’s co n v ict ion s an d sen tenc es a re AF F I RMED .