2005 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 5-17-2005 

# U SA v . W a alee P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 04-2178

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2005 D e c i sion s b y an author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " U SA v . W a ale e " (2005). 2005 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1176. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005/1176NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

____________ N o. 04- 2178

____________ UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. LUTFEE AB DU L W AA LEE, a/k/ a Ll oy d A nthonyH ughes L ut fee A bdul W aal ee, A ppel l ant

____________ O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e W e ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D . C . N o. 02- cr - 00195) D i s t r i ctJ udge: H onor abl e G aryL . L anca s t er

____________ Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

M ay12, 2005 B e f o re : S L O V IT E R , F IS H E R a n d A L D IS E R T , C i r cui tJudges .

( Fi l ed: M ay17, 2005)

____________ OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

____________2

F IS H E R , C i r cui tJudge . D efe ndantL ut fee A bdul W aal ee, a/k/ a/L l oy d A nthonyH ughes , w as convi ct ed by a j ur yof tw o count s of bank f r aud i n vi ol at i on of 18 U . S. C . § 1344 ( C ount s I and I I ) , and o n e c o u n to f

p o s s e s s i n g a n d n e g o t i a t i n g a f i c t i t i o u s o b l i g a t i o n i n v i o l a t i o n o f 1 8 U. S . C. § 514( a) ( C ountV ) . A ft eran uns ucce s s ful pos t - t r i al m ot i on fora new tr i al , M r . W aal ee w as s ent ence d t o t hr ee 36- m ont h t erm s of i m pr i s onm entt o run concurr ent l y , and or der ed t o pay$9, 041. 26 i n r es t i tut i on and s erve a f i ve- y eart erm of s upervi s ed r el eas e fol l ow i ng r el eas e fr om i m pr i s onm ent . O n appea l , M r . W aal ee c hal l enges the s uffi ci encyof the evi dence on C ount s I I and V , cont ends thata new tr i al on C ountV i s w arr ant ed due t o an in su f f icie n t ju ryin stru c tio n , an d a rg u e s th a t th e D istric t C o u rt, d u rin g se n ten c in g , err e d in i t s l os s cal cul at i on undert he U ni t ed St at es Sent enci ng G ui del i nes . W e w i l l aff i r m the j udgm entof convi ct i on, butvaca t e the s ent ence and r emand forfur t hers ent enci ng i n l i ght of U ni t ed Stat es v. B ooker , 543 U . S. — , 125 S. C t . 738 ( 2005) . B eca us e the fa ct s and pr ocee di ngs bel ow ar e know n t o t he part i es , w e foc us her e on the r at i onal e forour deci s i on. I. O n a cha l l enge t o t he s uffi ci encyof the evi dence , thi s C our tr evi ew s the evi dence i n t he l i ghtm os tfavor abl e t o t he governm ent , and mustaff i r m i f a r at i onal tr i erof fa ctAl t h o u g h M r . Wa a l e e a p p e a r s t o i n v o k e p l e n a r yr e v i e w o n th e th e o r yth a twe 1 m u st e n g a g e in sta tu to ryc o n stru c tio n o f 1 8 U .S .C . § § 1 3 4 4 a n d 5 1 4 to re so lv e h is c o n ten tio n s, w e b e liev e th e e lem e n ts o f th e c rim e s c h a rg e d u n d e r th e se sta tu tes a re w e ll s et t l ed and thathi s chal l enges ar e more appr opr i at el ychar act er i zed a s chal l enges t o t he s uffi ci encyof the evi dence . R e d e m p tio n th e o ry , as b e st e x p lain e d b yth e g o v e rn m e n t, ap p e a rs to h o ld th a t a 2 bi r t h cert i fi cat e i s a negot i abl e i ns t rum entw hi ch the hol derm ayr edee m forval ue fr om t he fe der al governm ent . M r . W aal ee t es t i fi ed attr i al thathe under s t ands r edempt i on th e o ryto re st o n th e p re m ise th a t in 1 9 3 3 , C o n g re ss to o k th e U n ited S tate s in to 3 c o u ld h a v e f

o u n d th e d e f

e n d a n t g u ilty b e y o n d a re a s o n a b le d o u b t. U ni t ed Stat es v. Sh am bry , 3 9 2 F . 3 d 6 3 1 , 6 3 4 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 4 ). 1 C ount s I I and V char ged off ens es r el at ed t o M r . W aal ee’ s conducti n depos i t i ng a $25 m i l l i on “ce r t i fi ed t enderof paym ent ” ( her ei n r efe r r ed t o as the “$25 mi l l i on in stru m e n t”) in to a n a c c o u n t at C iti z e n ’s E a st C o m m u n ityD e v e lo p m e n t F e d e ra l C re d it U n io n . B o th c o u n ts re q u ire d th e g o v e rn m e n t to p ro v e in ten t to d e f ra u d . T h is e lem e n t is m et“i f an i ndi vi dual comm i t s an ac tthatcoul d putthe bank a tr i s k of l os s . ” U ni t ed Stat es v. Khor oz i an , 3 3 3 F . 3 d 4 9 8 , 5 0 5 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 3 ). In c o n side ri n g w h ethe r a d ef en d an t acted w ith inten t t o d ef rau d , a juryis en ti tl ed to ex am ine th e “ en ti re ci r cumst ance s of [a ] defe ndant ’ s conduct . ” U ni t ed Stat es v. Thom as , 315 F. 3d 190, 202 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 2 ) (i n terna l ci tat ion o m itted). M r . W aal ee c ont ends t he evi dence w as i ns uffi ci entt o pr ove i nt entt o defr aud for tw o re a so n s: o n e , itsh o w s th a t h is c o n d u c t w a s in ten d e d , n o t to d e f ra u d , b u t o n ly“ to pr ot es t , ” “t o s how boat , ” and “ t o pr os el yt i ze” i n conj unct i on w i t h hi s advoca cyof the s ocal l ed “r edempt i on t heory ” and tw o, thathi s conductcoul d notpos s i bl yhave putthe 2bankrupt cy , s us pended the gol d s t andar d and adopt ed a pa pers t andar d, al l i n vi ol at i on of

th e U .S . C o n stitu tio n , w h ich in tu rn m e a n s th a t all m o n e yb e c a m e u n law f u l o r “ f iat” m o n e y; b i r t h c e r t i f

i c a t e s t h e n p r o v i d i n g th e b a c k i n g f o rth i s f i a tm o n e y. 4 cr edi tuni on atr i s k beca us e hi s s t or yand the $25 mi l l i on i ns t rum enti t s el f w er e t oo p re p o ste ro u s to h a v e b e e n tak e n se rio u sly . T h e e v id e n c e , h o w e v e r, w a s e a silysu b jec t to an ad verse i nterpret at i on bya rat i on al tri er of fact . M r. W aal ee t est i fi ed d uri ng cross e x a m in a tio n th a t h e d id n o t o f f e r th e $ 2 5 m ill io n in stru m e n t as a jo k e a n d th a t h e a c tu a lly w ant ed t o obt ai n t he money . T he $25 mi l l i on i ns t rum entm or eovercarr i ed numer ous i ndi ci a of a genui ne che ck – i tw as pr i nt ed on comm on chec k s t ock i n t he s i ze of a typi cal chec k, di s pl ay ed the dol l aramount num er i cal l yand i n l ong- hand, and i ncl uded a s i gnatur e l i ne, chec k num ber , “payt o t he or derof” l i ne, pay erl i ne and r out i ng num ber– and thus w as evi dence of M r . W aal ee’ s i nt entt o defr aud. A ddi t i onal l y , the evi dence s how ed that , al t hough t he cr edi tuni on i m m edi at el ythoughtthe $25 mi l l i on i ns t rum ent su sp icio u s, it als o o p e n e d a n a c c o u n t f o r M r. W a a lee , ac c e p ted th e in stru m e n t f o r d e p o sit and pr ovi ded a r ece i pt . O ver al l , t he evi dence of r ecor d i s s uffi ci entt o s uppor ta fi ndi ng of i nt entt o defr aud. C o u n t II, ch a rg in g a n o f f e n se u n d e r 1 8 U .S .C . § 1 3 4 4 , req u ire d th e g o v e rn m e n t to pr ove thatM r . W aal ee e ngaged i n a “s cheme t o defr aud. ” Thi s C our thas defi ned “s cheme” i n t he bank f

r aud cont extas “anypl an, patt ern orcaus e of a ct i on, i ncl udi ng fal s e and f

r audul entpr et ens es and mi s r epr es ent at i ons , i nt ended t o dece i ve other s i n or der t o obt ai n s om ethi ng of val ue, s uch as m oneyfr om the i ns t i tut i on t o be dec ei ved, ” and ha s5

f u r t h e ri n s t ru c t e d t h a ts c h e me t o d e f r a u d i s d e t e r mi n e d b ywh e t h e r“ t h e s c h e me demonstr at ed a de par tur e fr om fundament al hones t y , m or al upr i ght nes s , orfai rpl ayand candi d deal i ngs i n t he gene r al l i fe of the comm uni t y . ” Thom as , 315 F. 3d at195, 196 (i n terna l ci tat ion s o m itted). M r . W aal ee, bor r ow i ng hi s conce pt i on of a s cheme t o defr aud fr om cas e l aw a d d re ss in g m a il an d w ire f ra u d , arg u e s th e re w a s in su f f icie n t ev id e n c e to p ro v e th is el em ent because t he creditun i on w as not fooled bythe $ 25 m i l l i on i nst rum ent and t hu s, no per s on of “or di naryprudence orcompre hens i on” w oul d have be en dec ei ved. W e nee d notdet erm i ne w hethert hi s conce pt i on of s cheme t o defr aud appl i es i n a bank f r aud cont extas w e have l i t t l e di ffi cul t yfi ndi ng s uffi ci entevi dence on t hi s r ecor d of a pl an or p a ttern o f

a c tiv ityd ire c ted a t o b tain in g m o n e yf ro m th e c re d it u n io n . A g a in , itis i m por t antt hatM r . W aal ee t es t i fi ed as t o hi s fi r m bel i ef i n r edempt i on theory , and e x p la in e d h is c o n s id e ra b le e f f o rt s in p re p a ri n g in s tru m e n ts w ith in d ic ia o f g e n u in e n e s s . H e appe ar ed att he cr edi tuni on on num er ous occa s i ons t o compl et e the tr ans act i on and di d s o aft erhi s eff

or t s t o fool ot heri ns t i tut i ons w i t h s i m i l ari ns t rum ent s had fa i l ed or w ere b eing q u esti o n ed . In th e c ir cu m stan ce s o f th is case , if M r. W aa lee d id n o t dep art f ro m f u n d a m e n tal h o n e sty , m o ra l u p rig h tn e ss , fa ir p lay an d c a n d id d e a lin g s, it is d if f icu lt to u n d e rs ta n d w h a t c o n d u c t w o u ld c o n s titu te s u c h a d e p a rt u re . See U ni t ed Stat es v. Sc h w a rtz , 899 F. 2d 243, 247 ( 3d C i r . 1990) ( r ej ect i ng a s uffi ci encyof the evi dence ch all en g e to a b an k fra u d co n v ict ion u n d er sim il ar rea so n ing ).6

C ountV , char gi ng an off ens e under18 U . S. C . § 514( a) , r equi r ed the governm ent t o pr ove thatt he fa l s e orfi ct i t i ous i ns t rum enthad the appe ar ance of “a n actual s ecur i tyor ot herfi nanci al i ns t rum ent . ” I n U ni t ed Stat es v. H

ow i ck , 2 6 3 F . 3 d 1 0 5 6 , 1 0 6 8 (3d C ir . 2001) , w e ende avor ed t o pr ovi de s om e meani ng t o t he oper at i ve phas e: A n unl aw ful fi ct i t i ous obl i gat i on . . . i s one thatappea r s t o be ‘ actual ’ i n t he s e n s e th a t it b e a rs a f

a m ily re s e m b la n c e to g e n u in e f in a n c ia l in s tru m e n ts . T he off endi ng documentm us t , i n otherw or ds , i ncl ude enough of the var i ous hal l m arks and i ndi ci a of f i nanci al obl i gat i ons s o as t o appea rt o be w ith in th a t cla ss . T h e tes t, th e n , is n o t w h e th e r th e d o c u m e n t is sim ilar to a n yf in a n c ial o b lig a tio n in p a rticu lar , b u t w h e th e r ta k e n a s a w h o le it is a p p a re n tlya m e m b e r o f th e f a m ilyo f ‘a c tu a l .. . fin a n c ial in stru m e n t[ s]’ in g e n e ra l. (fo o tno te om itted, bra ck ets i n the o ri g inal). M r . W aal ee c ont ends t hat , beca us e no r eas onabl e per s on w oul d have be en dece i ved byt he $25 mi l l i on i ns t rum ent( w hi ch he c har act er i zes as of “poorqual i t yand u n p ro f e ss io n a l ap p e a ra n c e ” ), an d in d e e d th e c re d it u n io n w a s n o t so d e c e iv e d , this el ementw as notm et . W e r ej ectt hi s ar gum ent , how ever . A s not ed, the $25 mi l l i on i ns t rum entcarr i ed numer ous i ndi ci a of a genui ne i ns t rum ent , and M r . W aal ee a dm i t t ed on c ro ss -e x a m in a tio n th a t h e to o k ste p s to p ro d u c e a q u a lityin stru m e n t, on e w h ich h e d id notcons i dera j oke. Fur t her , t he cr edi tuni on, w hi l e s us pi ci ous , acc ept ed and pr oces s ed th e in stru m e n t to a c e rta in p o in t. O n th is re c o rd , the re is c lea rlysu f f icie n t ev id e n c e to s uppor ta fi ndi ng t hatt he $25 mi l l i on i ns t rum enthad the appe ar ance of “a n actual s e c u ri ty o r o th e r f

in a n c ia l in s tru m e n t.”7 II. T he D i s t r i ctC our ti ns t ruct ed the j urythat , i n or dert o convi cton C ountV under18 U . S. C . § 514( a) , i tm us tfi nd t hatt he $25 mi l l i on i ns t rum ent“appe ar ed t o be orw as r epr es ent ed t o be an a ctual fi nanci al i ns t rum enti s s ued bythe U ni t ed St at es governm ent butw as not . ” A ft erconvi ct i on, M r . W aal ee f i l ed a mot i on fora new tr i al , cont endi ng t hat t he D i s t r i ctC our terr ed i n notfur t herexpl ai ni ng thi s el ementt o t he j ury . T hatm ot i on w a s d e n ied , an d M r. W a a lee p re ss e s th is a rg u m e n t ag a in o n a p p e a l. W e r evi ew j ur yi ns t ruct i ons “t o det erm i ne w hether , ‘ t aken a s a w hol e, they pr oper l yappr i zed the j ur yof the i s s ues and the appl i cabl e l aw . ’ ” U ni t ed Stat es v. Y eam an , 194 F. 3d 442, 452 ( 3d C i r . 1999) ( quot i ng D r es s l erv. B us ch Ent er tai nm ent C or p. , 1 4 3 F .3 d 7 7 8 , 7 8 0 (3 d C ir. 1 9 9 8 ) (in ter n a l q u o tatio n o m itt e d )). “ T h e iss u e is ‘w h e th e r, v iew e d in lig h t o f th e e v id e n c e , the c h a rg e a s a w h o le f a irlya n d a d e q u a tely s ubm i t s t he i s s ues i n t he ca s e t o t he j ury . ’ ” U ni t ed Stat es v. Thayer , 201 F. 3d 214, 221 ( 3d C i r . 1999) ( quot i ng U ni t ed Stat es v. Zehr bach , 47 F. 3d 1252, 1264 ( 3d C i r . 1995) (i n terna l qu o tat ion m ark s o m itted)). W e fi nd no err or . T he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s j uryi ns t ruct i on m i r r or ed the t erm s of the s t atut e, and the phas e ati s s ue i nvol ves pl ai n l anguage w i t hi n t he comm on under s t andi ng o f a ju ro r. S e e U

n itedS ta tes v . H

a ll , 801 F. 2d 356, 360 ( 8th C i r . 1986) ( not i ng that“not everyt erm . . . i n ourcr i m i nal s t atut es pos s es s es s om e hi dden met aphy s i cal l egal m eani ng r equi r i ng l engthyi ns t ruct i on fora j ur ort o under s t and. ”) . M or eover , w e ar e s at i s fi ed that8

t he r ecor d as a w hol e, w hi ch i ncl uded the governm ent ’ s eff or t s t o i dent i fythe hal l m arks of l egi t i m at e fi nanci al i ns t rum ent s as a poi ntof compar i s on t o t he $25 mi l l i on i ns t rum ent h e re , o th e rw ise p ro v id e d su f f icie n t ex p lan a tio n o f

th is e lem e n t. Ac c o r d i n g l y , we wi l l a f f i r m th e c o n v i c t i o n s o n Co u n t s I I a n d V.

III . M r. W a a lee c o n ten d s th a t th e D istric t C o u rt e rre d a s a m a tter o f law w h e n , in sent encing, i ti ncluded t he am ou nt r epresent ed b ythe $ 25 m i l l i on i nst rum ent i n it s cal cul at i on of l os s underU . S. S. G . § 2B 1. 1( b) w hen, acc or di ng t o M r . W aal ee, that amount cons t i tut ed nei t heractual nori nt ended l os s . H avi ng det erm i ned thatthe s e n t e n c i n g i s s u e s r a i s e d a r e b e s td e t e r mi n e d b yth e Di s t r i c tCo u r ti n th e f i r s ti n s t a n c e , we w i l l vaca t e the s ent ence and r emand forr e- s ent enci ng i n acc or dance w i t h B ooker .