NO T R EC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION File Na me: 10a0332n.06 No. 08-6405
UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT UNITED STAT ES O F AMERICA, P laintif f-App ellee,
v. GREGO RY C HA RL ES KRUG, Defendan t-Appellant. / ON AP P EA L F RO M THE U NI TED STA TES D ISTRIC T C OU RT F OR THE M ID DL E D ISTRIC T OF TEN NE SSEE

OP IN ION BEF OR E: MARTIN, CLAY , and KETHL EDGE, Circ uit Jud ges . CLAY, Circ uit Jud ge. Def endant Gr eg ory

Kru g ap peals the district c ourt’s finding that he viol ated

th e c o n d it io n s o f

h is s u p e r v is e d r e le a s e . T h e d is tr ic t c o u rt r e v o k e d D e f e n d a n t’s
s u p e r v i s e d r e l e a s e p u r s u an tt o 1 8 U
. S
. C
. § 3 5 8 3 ( e ) an d i mp o s e d a s e n t e n c e o f

o n e ye ar i nc u s t o dy. Th e pr inc ipa l viol a tio ns fo un d by the dis tr ic t cou rt we re ba se d on D e fe nd ant’ s su bmi ssi on of fa lse financ ial information, both in sworn leg al documents a n d t o his probation office r, as we ll as Def endant’ s failure to comply with require ments that he we ar a g lob a l p o s it io n in g

sy stem monitoring de vic e . F or

the fo llo wi ngreason s, the dis tr ic t c ourt ’s re vo c a tio n o f s up e rv ise d r e le a se is AF F IR M ED
. BACK GR OUND On Novembe r 4, 1999, Def endant was convicted following a jury trial of poss ession of an unreg istered silenc er in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 5861(d), shippi n g fi re ar m s on a common ca rrierwi tho ut p e rm iss ion in v iol a tio n o f 1 8 U .S. C. § 92 2( e ) a nd § 9 24 (a )( 1) and

sh ipp ing a

fi re arm wi th intent to commit murde r in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(b). The district cour t sentence d him to 120 months in prison followed by three y ear s of supervise d rele ase. Def endant be g an his supervised r elea se on Jun e 2 7 , 2007. On April 10, 2008, the district
c ourt fo un d th a t D e fe nd ant ha d vio la te d the te rm s of his su pe rv ise d r e le a se , s e nte nc e d h im t o ti me
se rv e d, thr e e mon ths in a

ha lf -w ay ho us e , a nd g lob a l po sit ion sy ste m (“ GPS ” ) mon ito ri ng . On July 31, 2008, the probation office rec ommended a new finding that Def endant ha d violated the ter ms of hi s s u p er v i s ed re lease . A re vocation hea ring was he ld Aug ust 11, 2008 where the district court found violations had occurre d (the “ Aug ust violations”). The August violations are base d on three separ ate a cts. The dist rict court found Defenda nt failed to follow the i nstructions of his probation office r by ref

using to wea

r t he ordered GPS monitoring device, fa iled to wear the monitoring de vice
as re quired, a

nd ref used to provide r equeste d financ ial information t o h i s p robation off icer . The district court held those violations in abey ance . On Octobe r 22, 2008, the prob at i on office ag ain filed a petition for summons based on alleg ed violations of supervise d rele ase. Tha t petition was amende d on November 6, 2008 to include a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1623, although the f actua l predica

te was ide ntical to the pre vious alleg ed violations. On Novembe r 5, 2008, De fenda nt appea red w ith counsel for a

revoc ation hear ing. A t the hea ri n g, De fe ndant waive d his right to counse l, and his attorney ’s motion to withdraw was g rante d. Def

endant’ s attorney

rema ined as “ elbow counse l” for a hea ring that was a djourned to the
ne xt day . O n N ov e mbe r 6 , 2 00 8, the dis tr ic t c ourt he ld a re vo c a tio n h e ari ngand fou nd that a ll alleg ed violations had bee n committed (the “N ovember violations” ) . The Nove mber violations wer e ba se d o n s e v e r a l s e p ar a t e a l l e g a t i o n s . T h e m a i n c o mp l a i n t w a s t h a t D e f e n d an t p r o v i d e d

fa lse fi n an ci al i nformation base d on a bank a ccount he had that wa s not disclosed. Technic ally , theviolati o n s w e r e th a t h e s u b mi tt e d f a ls e f in an c ia l a f

f id a v it s in v io lati o n o f 1 8 U
. S. C. § 1 0 0 1 and § 1 62 3, that he su

bmi tte d f a lse fi na nc ia l r e po rt s, that he did no t “ ans we r tr uth fu lly” in r e sp on se to inq uir ie s f ro m hi s pr ob a tio n of

fi c e r, and that he fa ile d to p ro vid e re qu e ste d f ina nc ia l in fo rm a tio n to his probation office r. In addition, two more violations reg ardi n g De fe n d ant’s lack of complianc e with his GPS monitoring de vice we re f ound. De fe n d an td o es n o tco n t es tt h e v i o l at i o n s b as edo nh i s fa i l u re t o w e a rGP S m o n i t o ri n g, arguing only

that he is old and for g etful and that he often acc identally leave s the device in its charg er when he leave s the house. He also does not contest the f inding in the August violations of failure to provide finan ci al i n fo rm ation. His main arguments deal with the fa ctual under pinnings of the fa ilure to p ro vid e c or

re c t f ina nc ia l in fo rm a tio n th a t con sti tut e the bu lk o f t he Au g us t vi olatio ns . Af te r r e fu sin g to pr ov ide fi na nc ia l inf or ma tio n to the pr ob a tio n o ff ic e r, the dis tr ic t c ourt

e ve ntu a lly
or de re d D e fe nd ant’ s p re vio us a tt o r n e y , D o u g l a s M c A l p i n e , t o f u r n i shthe pr ob a tio n o ff

ic e r a mon thl y fi na nc ia l a ff ida vit fo r De fe nd ant. Mc Al pin e ha d a c lie nt t ru st that ha d D e fe nd ant’ s mo ne y and a lso assisted in manag ing D efe ndant’s fina ncial tra nsactions. Throug h this information, the district court lear ned about a Wells Fa

rg o acc ount in the name of “Gooda ll W . McCollough, Jr., for Gr egKrug ,” which was r e f

e r r e d to a t t h e r e v o c a ti o nh e ar in g a s th e “ Ca li f o r n ia a c c o u n t. ” D e f

e n d an t n e v er disclosed this acc ount as an a sset on any document filed w ith the court or hi s probation officer. The a ccount wa s cre ated whe n Def endant wa s in jail, and curr en t l y all the money

in the

a c c ount c ome s f

ro m Soci a l Sec ur ity c he c ks

. Th e a c c ount al so or ig ina lly inc lud e d pro c e e ds fr om a house sale that McCollough wa s holding on De fenda nt’s behalf

. Def endant r elied on his forme r attorney , McAlpine, to help mana g e his aff airs.Som e of the se state me nts a

pp e ar to be fr om a dif

fe re nt ac c ount in Cal if

or nia , not the Wel ls 1 Fa rg o acc ount at issue here

. Def endant asserts t hat t his other account is closed, and the g overnme nt provides no evide nce to the c ontrary
. The go v er n m ent ar g ues that De fenda nt has no g rounds for a

ppeal be cause he cha lleng ed 2 on ly the re vo c a tio n o f h is s up e rv ised rel ease , n ot t he se nte nc e imp os e d. Sin c e De fe nd ant f re e ly admits to multipl e viol ations of t he conditions of super vised rele ase, the g overnme nt believes that any err or is ha

rmless beca

use “a district court nee d find only a sing le violation to revoke a criminal defe ndant’s super

vised rele ase” Un ite d Sta te s v . Co fie ld , 2 33 F .3 d 4 05 , 4 08 (6 th C ir . 2 00 0) . T his argument is without m erit. De fenda nt admits five violations: t he th ree Aug ust violations pl us continued failure to properly wea r his GPS device. The Aug ust violations were he ld in abey ance at Following a sea

rch of Def endant’ s apar

tment, nume r o u s b a

nk statements wer e found r elating to thi s Ca lif

or nia a c c ount. Th e mos t re c e nt state me nt sh ow e d a c tiv ity fo r D e fe nd ant u nd e r t he same 1

a c c ount n umb e r a nd did no t me nti on

Mc Col lou g h. Th e dis tr ic t c ourt fo un d: I t’s very clea

r from the doc uments and fr om the testimony that these a ccounts have only the m oney of Mr. Krug
. Mr. M cCollough was foll owing – and Mr. Mc Alpine – f oll ow ingve ry

sp e c if ic ins tr uc tio ns of Mr
. Kr

ug on c he c ks to b e wr itt e n o ut o f t his acc ount, expenditures to be made, transfe rs of these funds to Mr . McAlpine, a nd the on ly wa y that th e pr ob atio n o ff

ic e dis c ov e re d thi s a c c ount wa s fi na lly purs ua nt t o my Aug ust 1 1 , 2 0 08 order

wher e I order ed [an] affidavit of Mr. Mc Alpine. Mr. Mc Al pin e re ve a le d f

or the fi rs t time that the Soc ia l Se c ur ity c he c ks are de po sit e d in a pre exis ting savings a ccount f or Mr. Krug in California; that Mr. McA lpine does not control this acc ount but the funds are dispersed to Mr. McAlpine’ s trust acc ount as neede d and that the sa v i n g s balanc e in that ac count on Aug ust 31[ , 2008] was $9,952.73. (Nov. Hr . Tr. 102). I n choosing to revoke supervised r elea se, the district cour t considere d both the Aug ust and November

violations and sentence d Def endant to one y ear

in custody

. DI SCU SSIO N I. As a preliminary

matter, De fenda

nt raises seve ral proc edura l issues. First, Def endant a rg ues that the alleg ed violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1623, which was added on the day of the he aring , prejudice d his defe nse. Howeve r, the fa ctual alleg ations were identical to the timely -noticed violations, and

2that tim e, an d t h e governme nt cannot show that the a dditional two GPS violations would have

nece ssarily

trig g ere d a re vocation of supe rvised re lease . Be cause the district co u rt co u l d have re vo ke d D e fe nd ant’ s su

pe rv ise d r e le a se do e s no t mea n that it ne c e ssa ri ly wo uld have re vo ke d it without making the f

indings it did at the Nove mber he aring

. the a dd iti on

of § 1 62 3 wa s sim

ply a dd ing ano the r statut e that De fe nd ant ha d a lle g e dly vio la te d w hil e
on su pe rv ise d r e le a se . As the dis tr ic t cou rt pr op e rl y no te d: “T he re ’s no ne w v iol a tio n. Th e re ’s jus t an additional cr imina l statute that the g overnme nt has adde d to the petition.” (Nov. Hr . Tr. 3). Kr ug ’s de fe ns e to t

he tim e ly br ou g ht a lle g a tio ns of

a vio la tio n of 18 U. S.C. § 1 00 1 w a s id e nti c a l to a def ense of an alleg ed violation of § 1623. Cf. Morr i ssey v . Brewer , 408 U.S. 471, 480 (1972) (n oti ngthat “ the fu ll p ano ply of ri g hts du e a de fe nd ant in [c ri min a l pr os e c uti on s] do e s n ot a pp ly to parole revoc ations”). Additionally , Def

endant a rg ues t hat he was prejudiced by the withdraw al of his counse l on November

5, 2008. We disag ree . Def endant made the dec ision to revoke his rig ht to counsel, and the district court spec ifically found that he “ knowing ly waived his rig ht to counsel for purposes of this revocation procee ding.” (Nov. Hr . Tr. 3). Further more, the c ourt instructed De fenda nt’s previous counse l to remain as e lbow counsel, fur ther re ducing the possibilit y of pre judice. II. On the me ri ts, we re vie w a

dis tr ic t c ourt ’s de c isi on

to r e vo ke su

pe rv ise d r e le a se fo r abuse
o f discre tion. United States v. Kontrol , 5 5 4 F
. 3 d 1 0 8 9 , 1 0 9 1 ( 6 th

Ci r . 2 0 0 9 )

. T h e d is tr ic t c o u rt’ s leg al conc lusions are re viewed de novo , while its factua l findings a re r eviewe d for c lear

err or. Id

. at 1091-92. De fe n d an t ’s fa i l u re t o p ro p er l y re p o rt t h e C al i fo rn i a acc o u n t i n b o t h a se ri es o f co u rt fi l i n gs and in disclos u re s to his probation office r led to a numbe r of violations being found. De fenda nt makes thre e ar g uments as to w hy the finding of violations wa s inappropriate. First, he a rg ues thatDef endant a lso alleg es that the pe tition for summons does not allege that he ac t ed 3
“ kn ow ing ly

and wi llf ull y ,” bu t the su mmo ns c le arl y state s tha t De fe nd ant m a de fa lse state me nts “ in violation” of the re levant statutes. Those statutes can only be violated if the Def

endant a cts with the n e c e s s ar y mens rea . the dis tr ic t c ourt

did no t f ind the requ is ite int e nt. Se c on d, he argue s th a t th e a lle g e dly fa lse statements wer e not ac tually false. F inally , he ar g ues that the violations we re only discovere d on the basis of privileg ed mater ial. All three a rg uments must fail. Th e d istrict court found that De fenda nt violated the terms of his super vised rele ase by violating 18 U.S.C. § 1001 and § 1623. De fenda nt is c o rr ec t t h at both statutes have a mens rea
re qu ir e me nt that re qu ir e s kno wl e dg e . Sec tio n 1 00 1 p un ish e s f a lse state me nts “ in a

ny ma tte r w ith in the jurisdiction of the . . . judicial b ra n ch o f t h e Gover nment of the United States” that are made “knowing ly

and willfully .” Section 1623 dea ls with false dec larations “befor e or a ncillary to any court . . . of the United States” that a re ma de “k n owing ly .” Ac cordingto Defe ndant, the district
c o u rtn e v e r e s t a

b l i s h e d t h a t t h e f

a i l u r e t o d i s c l o s e t h e C a l i f o r n i a a c c o u n t w a s m a d e “ kn o w i n g l y. ” 3 A district court c an re voke super vised rele ase if it finds “by a pre pondera

nce of the evidenc e that the def

endant violated a condition of supervised r elea se.” 18 U .S.C. § 3583(e)(3) . The district court may not ha

ve explicitly

stated that the stateme nts were made with the r equisite mens rea , but such a c o n c lu s io n c an b e r e a d il y in f e r r e d

. D e f e n d an t a ll e g e d ly ma d e f a ls e s tate me n ts on an ind ig e nc y a ff ida vit , a ne t w or th s ta te me nt, and

nume ro us mon thl y

su pe rv isi on re po rt s. Th e fa lse statements primarily

stemmed from the failure to disc lose the California acc ount. The district cour t found that De fenda

nt “fa iled to respond truthfully ” to the probation of fi ce r’ s reque st for financ ial information. The district c ourt also noted the f act that a sear ch of D efe ndant’s apa rtment showed numerous bank statements from this acc ount. I n discussing a nother violation, the d istric t court notes that Def endant had “hidden the a ssets in these ac counts and hidden the exis tence of these a ccounts.”De fe nd ant a lso argue d tha t the dis tr ic t court fa ile d to “pr ov ide any sp e c if ic s as t o th e de ta ils 4 on financ ial information to which Krug has alleg edly failed to re spond truthfully .” (D ef. B r. at 11). A re view of the hear ing tr anscr ipt makes it appar ent that the primar y information the district cour t believed w as withheld wa s the California a ccount. (Nov. Hr. Tr. 103). The use of the ve rb “hidde n” indicate s intent. Given the def ere ntial standard of re view, the district cour t adequately

found that De fenda

nt’s violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1001 and § 1623 wer e done w ith the requisite mens rea . 4 Def endant’ s next argument is that he did not actu al l y make a ny false statements. The Mo nth ly Sup e rv isi on

Re po rt a sk e d: “ Do y ou

have c he c kin g acco unt( s) ? ” De fe nd ant a ns we re d in the neg ative, but he a

rg ues that tec hnically

the California a ccount wa s not his. Defenda nt did not have unr estrict ed ac ce s s to the acc ount, although he admits that the money in the acc ount was
ex cl u s i v ely

his. Defe ndant ar g ues that the probation office should ha ve aske d if Def

endant ha d money in a bank a ccount, not whe ther he had any bank accounts. Acc ording to Defe ndant, there fore , his statement was “ literally true,” and the Supre me Court h as d ec i d ed that a defe ndant ca nnot be convicted of

perjury for a n answe r “that is literally true but not responsive to the questi on asked a nd arguably misleading by

neg ative implication.” Bronston v

. United States , 409 U.S. 352, 353 (1973). Fi rs t , t h e d i s t ri ct co u rt cl ea rl y fo u n d t h at De fe n d an tco n t ro l l edt h e C al i fo rn i a a cc o u n t , ev en t h o u gh his na me was not te chnica lly on the acc ount. Second, any err or would be harmless becau s e t he alleg ations ag ainst Defe ndant ar e much br oader than simply denying that he had a bank acc ount. The Petition for Summ ons also notes that Def endant sig ned a f

inancial a ffidavit cla iming he only had $383.50 in cash a

nd not mentioning the Califor nia ac co u n t o r o ther a ssets. Defe ndant did not ref ere nce the bank ac count in a net wor th affidavit submi tted to the p ro b at ion office on J une 14, 2008. The summons alleg es that the probation officer repe atedly

questioned De fenda

nt reg arding his finance s, and t hat Defenda nt “denie d having acc ess t o or control of, any bank ac count.” ( Def

.Rep. Br . Ex . B)

. Ample evidenc e supports a finding that Def endant purposely

conce aled his money in the California a ccount, a clea r violation of the ter

ms of his supervised re lease

. Def endant’ s final ar g ument is that the district court re l i ed o n information that should be protec ted by

the attorne y -client privileg e. He argues that the district cour t’s ord er requiring Def endant’ s previous attorne y , McAlpine, to submit an af fi d av i t about Def

endant’ s financia l situation led to the disclosure of privilege d information. The dist rict court noted at the re vocation he ari ngthat “ the on ly

wa y the pr ob a tio n o ff

ic e discov ered

th[e Ca lif

or nia a c c ount] w a s f

ina lly pursuant to my

Aug ust 11, 2008 or der wher e Iorder ed this aff idavit of Mr. McAlpine.” (Nov. Hr

. Tr. 102). Th e inf or ma tio n r e qu est ed o f M c Al pin e wa s n ot p ri vil e g e d. “ Th e pr ivi le g e a pp lie s o nly wh e re ne c e ssa

ry to a c hie ve its purp os e and pr ote c ts o nly

tho se c omm

un ic a tio ns ne c e ssa

ry to o bta in leg al advice .” In re Columbia/HCA Healthcare Corp., 293 F.3d 289, 294 (6th Cir. 2002) (c itations and quotations omitted). See also Morganroth &Morganroth v. De Lorean , 12 3 F .3 d 37 4, 38 3 ( 6th Cir. 1997) (discussion of attorne y ’s fe es wa s “a non -p ri v i leg ed, fina ncial discussion that did not inv olv e the se e kin g or pr ov isi on of le g a l a dv ic e ” ); United States v. Bartone , 40 0 F .2 d 4 59 , 4 61 (6 th Cir

. 19 68 ) (t e sti mony by a tto rn e y s a bo ut De fe nd ant’ s fi na

nc ia l de a ls wa s no t pr ivi le ged be c a us e there was “ no indication that any of this testim ony conce rned le g al advice g iven to [Defenda nt] ”). In t h i s c a s e , D e f

e n d an tw a s m e r e l y u s i n g h i s a t t o r n e y t o h e l p w i t h f

i n an c i a l m an a g e m e n t
. C r u c i a l l y, “the bur den of e stablishing the e x istence of the privileg e rests with the person asser ting it.” United Sta te s v . D ak ota , 197 F.3d 821, 825 (6th Cir. 1999). Def endant has not come forwar d with sufficient evidenc e that his conve rsations about financ ial matters with McAlpine w ere p art of a leg al relationship t o rec eive “ leg al advice .” CO NC LU SIONF or the fo re g oin g re a so ns , th e jud g me nt o f t he dis tr ic t c ourt

is AF F IR M ED
.