# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls

For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 2- 34 36

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el le e

v.

Gen e Ji rak

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll an t

__ __ __ __ __ __

App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t

fo r th e Nor th ern Dis tri ct of I owa , W at erl oo

__ __ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: May 17, 2 01 3

Fil ed : Au gu st 28 , 20 13

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re SHEPHERD, BEAM, an d M ELLOY, Cir cu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __

BEAM, Ci rcu it Ju dg e.

Gen e Ji rak was co n v i c t e d o n fiv e co un ts : (1 ) m ak in g a fal se cl ai m fo r a ta x

refu nd on Ja nu ary 9, 20 09 ; (2 ) m ak in g a f a l s e c la im fo r a ta x refu nd on Mar ch 27

, 20 09 ; (3 ) ut te rin g a fo rg ed tre as ur y ch eck on Mar ch 9, 20 09 ; (4 ) m ai l frau d in Ja nu ary

20 09 ; an d (5 ) ag gr av at ed id en ti ty th eft on Ja nu ary 9, 20 09

. He ap pe al s hi s co nv ic ti onon m

ul ti pl e gr ou nd s. Hav in g juri sd ic ti on un de r 2 8 U

. S

. C. § 12 91

, we affi rm th e

di st ric t co ur t on th e su bs ta nt iv e m at te rs , bu t rem an d wit h in st ru ct io ns th at th e di st ric t

1

co ur t m od ify it s writ te n jud gm en t to co nf or m to it s or al pr on ou nc em en t of th e sp eci al

co nd it io n o f su pe rv is ed rel eas e.

I. BACKGRO UND

D u r i n g t he ti m e rel ev an t to th is act io n, fro m 20 05 to 20 09

, Ji rak res id ed in

W in ne sh ie k Cou nt y , Io wa, an d was em pl oyed as a fact or y wor ke r, earn in g bet ween

$3 2,0 00 an d $3 5,0 00 pe r y ear. Ji rak was m arri ed to Je an Ji rak , no w kn own as Jea n

Kin ge ry ("Ki ng ery"), un ti l th e two se pa rat ed in Nov em be r 20 08

, an d di vo rced in Ju ly

20 09

. Tog et he r th e co up le 's in c o me a mo u nt ed to ap pr ox im at el y $4 2,0 00 pe r y ear.

Bet ween 20 06 an d 20 08

, th ey pr ep ared joi nt ta x ret ur ns us in g a ta x pr ep arer , W ay ne

Mi ll er. O n t he Ji rak 's 20 05

, 20 06 an d 20 07 ta x ret ur ns , th e co up le di d no t rep or t

ha vi ng earn ed t ax ab le in co m e fro m in ve st m en ts wit h fin an ci al in st it ut io ns , no r di d

th ey cla im fin an ci al in st it ut io ns wit hh el d a ny inc om e ta x o n t he ir b eh al f.

On Ja nu ary 9, 20 09

, Ji rak fil ed a Fo rm 10 40 X to am en d th e 20 05 fed eral joi nt 2

ta x ret ur n ("a m en de d 20 05 ret ur n" or "2 00 5 am en dm en t" ). The am en de d 20 05 ret ur n

ap pe ared to be fil ed on be ha lf of Ji rak an d Kin ge ry , as th e ret ur n co nt ai ne d Kin ge ry 's

na m e, so ci al se cu rit y nu m be r an d he r fo rg ed si gn at ur e. Fi ve 10 99 -OID Fo rm s were 3

The Hon or ab le Lin da R. Rea de

, Ch ie f Ju dg e, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Co ur t fo r 1

th e Nor th ern Dis tri ct of I owa

.

Fo rm 10 40 X is us ed to rep or t ch an ge s an d co rrec ti on s to a fil ed ret ur n. Treas

. 2
Reg . § 3 01 .64 02 -3

.

A10 9 9- OID Fo rm "i s us ed by is su ers of de bt ob li ga ti on s th at ha ve or ig in al 3

is su e di sc ou nt to rep or t," Fed

. Tax Co or di na to r ¶ S-3 07 3 (2 d e d. 2 01 3) , whi ch "i s a

rep or ta bl e fo rm of ta xa bl e in te res t ba se d on th e di ffer en ce be twee n th e m at ur it y an d

is su an ce p ric es of a de bt in st ru m en t." Uni te d St at es v. Mar ty, No. CIV S-0 9- 06 00

,

-2

-at ta ch ed to th e am en de d 20 05 ret ur n, pu rp or te dl y is su ed by fo ur se pa rat e fin an ci al

in st it ut io ns , in di cat in g th at each of th e na m ed fin an ci al in st it ut io ns wit hh el d in co m e

ta x du e on va rio us in ve st m en ts own ed by or fin an ci al ob li ga ti on s owe d by Ji rak

. Bas ed on th es e fiv e fo rm s, Ji rak cl ai m ed a refu nd in th e am ou nt of $5 6,9 99

. Ji rak di d

no t fil e a si m il ar am en dm en t wit h th e St at e of Io wa. Kin ge ry di d no t ha ve kn owl ed ge

of th e 20 05 am en dm en t an d te st ifi ed th at sh e di d no t gi ve Ji rak pe rm is si on to us e he r

na m e, so ci al sec ur it y

nu m be r or si gn at ur e.

On Mar ch 6, 20 09

, th e In te rn al Rev en ue Serv ic e ("I RS" ), fai li ng to reco gn iz e

t h e n at ur e of Ji rak 's ret ur n, is su ed a refu nd ch eck in th e am ou nt of $6 9,1 39

. 0 7 ( t h e

am ou nt of th e req ue st ed refu nd pl us in te res t). Upo n rece iv in g th e ch eck

, Ji rak fo rg ed

Kin ge ry 's s ig na tu re an d, o n M arch 10 , 2 00 9, de po si te d it in a joi nt sa vi ng s acco un t

at V i k i n g S t a te Ban k an d Trus t ("VSB "). VSB pl aced a ho ld on th e ch eck , d es pi te

Ji rak 's p ro te st

.

In Mar ch 20 09

, Kin ge ry rece iv ed a le tt er fro m th e IRS al ert in g he r to th e 20 05

am en dm en t. Kin ge ry cal le d Ji rak an d in qu ire d ab ou t th e refu nd

, to whi c h he

res po nd ed it was no ne of he r bu si ne ss an d it di d no t co nc ern he r. Kin ge ry al so cal le d

th e Mar in e Cred it Uni on , whe re sh e kn ew Ji rak he ld an acco un t, an d req ue st ed th at

, if Ji rak de po si te d a refu nd ch eck wit h he r si gn at ur e, it sh ou ld no t be cas he d be cau se

s h e di d no t si gn th e in st ru m en t. Kin ge ry , ag ai n, ph on ed Ji rak

, who

, at th is po in t

, ad m it te d he ha d a l r e a d y s i g n ed th e ch eck an d de po si te d it at VSB. Kin ge ry

co n f i r med w i th a VSB em

pl oyee th at Ji rak de po si te d a tre as ur y ch eck

, an d aft er

vi ewin g th e ch e c k

, Kin ge ry si gn ed an affi da vi t in di cat in g th at sh e di d no t si gn it

. VSB d id no t d ep os it th e ch eck to Ji rak 's a cco un t an d re tu rn ed it to th e IRS

.

20 09 W L 23 65 55 6, at *3 (E.D. Cal

. Ju ly 29

, 20 09 ); se e al so Tria l Tr. vo l. 1 at 25 (In te rn al Rev en ue Serv ic e em pl oyee wit ne ss st at in g th at th e 10 99 -OID Fo rm is us ed

to rep or t th e d iff

eren ce b et ween th e p ric e fo r whi ch a de bt in st ru m en t is is su ed an d

it s s ta te d re de m

pt io n p ric e at m at ur it y ).

-3

-As a res ul t of Kin ge ry 's ph on e cal l wi th Mari ne Cred it Uni on , Mari ne Cred it

la te r in fo rm ed Kin ge ry th at Ji rak at te m pt ed to de po si t a St at e of Io wa ta x refu nd

ch eck

, m ad e pa y ab le to Kin ge ry

. Th e s t a t e c h e c k, fro m th e 20 07 ta x y ear, was

au to m at ic al ly i ss ue d as a fed eral of fs et , u nr el at ed to th e 20 05 am en dm en t, an d was

se nt to Kin ge ry 's fo rm er ad dr es s whe re Ji rak was li vi ng in Mar ch 20 09

. Afte r

rev ie win g t he ch eck , Kin ge ry si gn ed an affi da vi t co nf

irming th at he r si gn at ur e was

fo rg ed

.

As th es e ev en t s t r a n s p ire d, on Feb ru ary 14

, 20 09

, Ji rak m et wit h Mi ll er to

pr ep are hi s 20 08 ta x ret ur n. Ji rak 's W -2 Fo rm in di cat ed hi s in co m e was $3 4,8 78 an d,

du rin g th is m eet in g, Ji rak di d no t pr ov id e Mi ll er wit h an y 10 99 -OID Fo rm s, no r di d

he in di cat e an y ot he r ta xa bl e in co m e. Mi ll er pr ep ared an d si gn ed a fed eral ta x ret ur n

th at st at ed Ji rak owed ap pr ox im at el y $1 ,15 0 i n t ax es an d a st at e ret ur n t ha t s ho wed

Ji rak wou ld rece iv e a sm al l refu nd

. Ji rak le ft Mi ll er's of fic e wit h th e fu ll y ex ecu te d

st at e an d fe de ral ret ur ns , read y to be m ai le d.

On Mar ch 27

, 20 09

, Ji rak el ect ro ni cal ly fi l e d h is 20 08 fed eral ta xe s. Mi ll er

te st ifi ed th at th e p a p e r wor k fil ed was no t th e fed eral ret ur n he pr ep ared

. The 20 08

ta x ret ur n cl ai m ed th ree fin an ci al in st it u t i o n s w it hh el d in co m e ta x du e on Ji rak 's

al le ge d in ve st m en ts

. Ji rak rep or te d hi s ta xa bl e in te res t was $7 2,2 89

, an d hi s rep or te d

wag es am ou nt ed to $3 4,8 78

, en ti tl in g Ji rak to a $5 3,7 87 refu nd

. Ji rak di d no t cl ai m

th e sa m e on hi s 20 08 st at e ta x ret ur n, an d fil ed th e st a t e r e t u r n p r ep ared by Mi ll er.

Afte r be in g al ert ed of th e na tu re of Ji rak 's 20 05 am en de d ret ur n, th e IRS di d no t is su e

a 2 00 8 re fu nd

.

On Ja nu ary 23

, 20 12

, fo ll owi ng Ji rak 's in di ct m en t, his co un se l fil ed a m ot io n

se ek in g to de te rm in e Ji rak 's co m pe te nc y , whi ch th e co ur t gr an te d. Bu t, du e to Ji rak 's

la ck of co op erat io n, th e do ct or was un ab le to of fer a co nc lu si on

. The n, on Feb ru ary

21

, 20 12

, th e go ve rn m en t al so req ue st ed a co m pe te nc y ev al ua ti on an d th e ev al ua to r

co nc lu de d Ji rak ha d av erag e in te ll ect ua l fu nc ti on in g, wit h no m en ta l di se as e or de fect

-4

-th at ren de red hi m un ab le to un de rs ta nd th at na tu re an d co n s e q u e n c es of hi s tri al

.

Ji rak fil ed nu m ero us pr o se m ot io ns du rin g th e pr et ria l st ag e of hi s cas e. Sp eci fic al ly,

on May 1, 20 12

, Ji rak fil ed a m ot io n to di sm is s hi s ap po in te d co un se l, whi ch th e

co ur t gr an te d on May 15

, 20 12

. Howev er, th e co ur t-a pp oi nt ed co un se l co nt in ue d as

st an db y co un se l d ur in g t he pe nd en cy of t he cas e.

Tria l was sc he du le d to be gi n on Ju ne 18

, 20 12

. On th at da y , du rin g a pr et ria l

co nf eren ce, Ji rak no t i f

i e d th e di st ric t co ur t th at he wan te d st an db y co un se l to

rep res en t hi m at tri al

. The co ur t co nt in ue d th e cas e un ti l th e ne xt da y an d ap po in te d

co un se l as Ji rak req ue st ed

. The jury fo un d Ji rak gu il ty on al l co un ts

. O n J u l y 5

, 2 0 1 2

, Ji rak fil ed a m ot io n fo r jud gm en t of acq ui tt al

, as se rti ng th at th e go ve r n men t

fai le d to pr es en t su ffi ci en t ev id en ce to es ta bl is h th e el em en ts of th e cri m es ch arg ed

, whi c h t h e c o ur t de ni ed

. On Ju ly 27

, 20 12

, Ji rak ag ai n req ue st ed th e di st ric t co ur t

te rm in at e hi s co un se l. The co ur t gr an te d hi s m ot io n a nd

, ag ai n, co un se l co nt in ue d

in a st an db y cap aci ty. On Octo be r 11

, 20 12

, th e co ur t se n t e n c ed Ji rak

, pr oc eed in g

pr o se , to a 45

- mo n t h t e r m of im pr is on m en t an d a th ree- y ear te rm of su pe rv is ed

rel eas e. Now rep res en te d b y ap po in te d c ou ns el , Ji rak ap pe al s.

II

. DISCUSS IO N

A. Suff

ic ie ncy of t he Ev id ence

Ji rak ch al le ng es th e su ffi ci en cy of th e ev id en ce as to al l co un ts of hi s

co nv ic ti on

. W e rev ie w th e su ffi ci en cy of th e ev id en ce de no vo , c o n s t r u i ng th e

e vi de nc e in th e li gh t m os t fav or ab le to th e ve rd ic t an d wil l on ly ov ert ur n th e

c on vi ct io n if no reas on ab le jury co ul d fin d Ji rak gu il ty b ey on d a reas on ab l e d o u b t

. Uni te d St at es v. Que ve do

, 65 4 F.3 d 81 9, 82 2 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 ). Fi rs t, Ji rak as se rts th at

th e go ve rn m en t di d no t of fer su ffi ci en t ev id en ce to pr ov e he m ad e a fal se c l a i m o n

Ja nu ary 9, 20 09

, an d on Mar ch 27

, 20 09

, in vi ol at io n of 18 U.S.C. § 28 7 (co un ts on e

a n d t w o )

. To pr ov e su ch a vi ol at io n, th e go ve rn m en t m us t sh ow, as th e jury w a s

-5

-in st ru ct ed

, th at (1 ) Ji rak m ad e an d pr es en te d to th e Uni te d St at es Treas ur y

Dep art m en t an d th e IRS a cl ai m ag ai ns t th e Uni te d S t a t e s ; (2 ) th e cl ai m was fal se , fic ti ti ou s or frau du le nt ; (3 ) Ji rak kn ew th e cl a i m was fal se , fic ti ti ou s or frau du le nt ;

an d (4 ) th at th e cl ai m was m at eri al to th e Uni te d St at es Treas ur y Dep art m en t an d th e

IRS. Un it ed Sta te s v. Refe rt, 51 9 F.3d 75 2, 75 7 (8t h C ir. 2 00 8) ; s ee al so 18 U.S.C.

§ 28 7; Man ua l of Mo de l Cri m in al Ju ry In st ru ct io n s f o r t he Dis tri ct Co ur ts of th e Eig ht h C irc ui t § 6.1 8.2 87 (20 13 ). The ju ry in st ru ct io ns als o e xp la in ed :

A cl ai m is " f

a l s e " o r "fi ct it io us " if an y pa rt of it is un tru e whe n m ad e,

an d th en kn own to be un tru e by th e pe rs on m ak in g it or cau si ng it to be

m ad e. A cl ai m is " f

r au du le nt " if an y pa rt of it is kn own to be un tru e,

an d m ad e or cau se d to be m ad e wit h th e in te nt to de c e i v e t he

go ve rn m en ta l ag en cy

to whi ch it is su bm it te d.

Ju ry Ins tru ct io n No . 13

.

The ev id en ce in di cat es th at Ji rak pr es en te d two fal se , fic ti ti ou s, or frau du le nt

cl ai m s ag ai ns t th e IRS. Test im on y fro m rep res en ta ti ve s of th e fin an ci al in st it ut io ns

li s t e d o n th e OID Fo rm s in di cat ed th at Ji rak di d no t ha ve an y in te res t-e arn in g

acco un ts at th os e in st it ut io ns ; no ne of th e fin an ci al in st it ut io ns wit hh el d th e am ou nt s

in di cat ed on th e fo rm s; an d no ne of th e in st it ut io ns pr ep ared th e OID Fo rm s. Thu s,

th ere was su ffi ci en t ev id en ce fo r a reas on ab le jury to fin d th e fir st two el em en ts of th e
§ 2 87 cla im s.

Ji rak fo cu se s hi s arg um en t on ap pe al co nc ern in g co un ts on e a n d t w o on th e

th ird el em en t, whe th er he kn ew th e cl ai m s were fal se , f i c t i t io us , or frau du le nt

. Kno wled ge m ay be sh own by ci rcu m st an ti al ev id en ce al on e an d it tu rn s, in la rg e pa rt,

on th e cred ib il it y of th e wit ne ss es , whi ch i s " p e c ul ia rly wit hi n th e pr ov in ce of th e

fact fin de r." Uni te d St at es v. Erdm an , 95 3 F.2 d 38 7, 39 0 (8 th Ci r. 19 92 ). The reco rd

su pp or ts th e jury's fin di ng th at Ji rak kn ew th e cl ai m s m ad e on th e 20 05 am en dm en t

-6

-an d th e 20 08 ret ur n were, at th e ve ry le as t, fal se or fic ti ti ou s. Kin ge ry te st ifi ed th at

,

in pr ev io us y ears , Ji rak pa rti ci pa te d in m eet in gs wit h th e ta x pr ep arer to fil e th ei r joi nt

ret ur ns an d kn ew th ey ha d no in ve st m en ts earn in g th e al le ge d ta xa bl e in co m e. Ji rak

al so si gn ed an d fil ed pr io r ta x ret ur ns wit ho ut c l a i mi n g an y si m il ar in ve st m en t

in co m e. Eve n m or e te ll in g, Ji rak di d no t cl ai m si m il ar in ve st m en ts on hi s 20 05 an d

20 08 st at e ret ur ns . W it h re ga rd to Ji rak 's 2 00 8 re tu rn , Mil le r co m pl et ed a st at e an d

fed eral ret ur n fo r Ji rak , b ut Ji rak di d no t fil e th at co m pl et ed fed eral ret ur n. Ra th er,

Ji rak su bm it te d a di ffer en t, el ect ro ni c ret ur n th at co nt ai ne d th e OID Fo rm s. Fi na ll y , Ji rak 's in it ia l rel uc ta nc e to te ll Kin ge ry of th e am en de d 20 0 5 r e tu rn is in di cat iv e of

hi s kn owl ed ge

. Tak en to ge th er, th es e fact s are su ffi ci en t to su pp or t th e jury's fin di ng

th at Ji rak kn ew th e cl ai m s wer e fal se or f ic ti ti ou s.

Fi na ll y , wit h reg ard to m at eri al it y , a fal se cl ai m is m at eri al if it ha s a te nd en cy

to in du ce th e go ve rn m en t to act

. Uni te d St at es v. A dl er, 62 3 F.2 d 12 87

, 12 91 (8 th

Ci r. 19 80 ). The ev id en ce sh ows th at

, ba se d on th e 20 05 am en dm en t, th e IRS di d in

fact is su e a refu nd

, s u p p o r t in g th e m at eri al it y of th e cl ai m

. Bec au se th e 20 08 ta x

ret ur n m ad e cl ai m s si m il ar to th os e on th e 20 05 am en dm en t, it is reas on ab le fo r a jury

to co nc lu de th at th e fal se cl ai m s were of th e type th at wou ld in du ce th e go ve rn m en t

to act

. Thu s, th ere was su ffi ci en t ev id en ce fo r a reas on ab le jury to fin d th at th e

cl ai m s wer e m at eri al , and th eref or e, fi nd Ji rak gu il ty of th e § 28 7 c ou nt s.

Nex t, Ji rak ch al le ng es th e su ffi ci en cy of th e ev id en ce as to th e in te nt el em en t

on th e rem ai ni ng th ree ch arg es –u tt eri ng a fal se tre as ur y c h e c k

, m ai l frau d, an d

ag gr av at ed ident ity the ft

–a sse rt in g th at th e go ve rn m en t fai le d to pr ov e th at Ji rak act ed

wit h an in te nt to de frau d. Ji rak es se nt ia ll y a r g u e s th at th e "jur y fai le d to co ns id er
. . . [tha t] Ji rak to ok th e ch eck . . . iss ue d b y th e IRS an d a tt em

pt ed to de po si t [i t] in

an acco un t sti ll joi nt ly he ld by hi s wife." On app eal

, ho wev er, w e do no t weig h th e

cred ib il it y of ev id en ce. Uni te d St at es v. Lou pe r-M or ris

, 67 2 F.3 d 53 9, 55 5 (8 th Ci r.

20 12 ).

-7

-W it h reg ard to co un t th r e e , u t t e r i n g a fal se tre as ur y ch eck in vi ol at io n of 18

U.S.C. § 51 0( a)(2 ), th ere was su f f i c i en t ev id en ce fo r a reas on ab le jury to co nc lu de

Ji rak act ed wit h a n in te nt to de frau d whe n h e at te m pt ed to de po si t t he ch eck is su ed

by th e Uni te d St at es Treas ur y Dep art m en t in th e am ou nt of $6 9,1 39 .07 aft er fo rg in g

Kin ge ry 's si g na tu re. See Uni te d St at es v. Ja y ne s, 75 F.3 d 14 93

, 14 99 (1 0t h Ci r. 4

1 9 9 6) ("An in te nt to de frau d th e Uni te d St at es m ay be sh own by an act whi c h t h e

act or kn ows wil l in te rfer e wit h th e go ve rn m en t's reg ul ar pa y m en t of fu nd s to a la wfu l

reci pi en t." (q uo ta ti on om it te d) ). As di sc us se d ab ov e, Ji rak pr es en te d th e am en de d ta x

ret ur n us in g Kin ge ry 's na m e an d s oc ia l se cu rit y nu m be r wit ho ut he r kn owl ed ge or

pe rm is si on

. Onc e Ji rak rece iv ed th e tre as ur y ch eck

, he di d no t co ns ul t Kin ge ry an d

fo rg ed he r si gn at ur e. See id

. ("S ig ni ng a ch eck in a na m e ot he r th an on e's real na m e

te nd s to es ta bl is h frau du le nt in te nt

. " )

. F u rth er, whe n Kin ge ry in qu ire d ab ou t th e

am en de d ret ur n, Ji rak to ld he r it was no ne of he r bu si ne ss an d th at it di d no t co nc ern

he r.

Lik ewis e, th e ev id en ce was su ffi ci en t fo r a reas on ab le jury to fin d Ji rak gu il ty

of co un t fo ur , m ai l frau d in vi ol at io n of 18 U.S.C. § 13 41

. Ji rak as se rts th at th e 5

go ve rn m en t was req ui red to sh ow Ji rak m ad e "a sc he m e to de frau d an ot he r ou t of

m on ey , in th is cas e [Kin ge ry ], an d us ed th e m ai l to carr y o u t t h e s c he m e." Ji rak

be li ev es th at be cau se he at te m pt ed to de po si t th e m on ey in an acco un t th at he own ed

Utt eri ng a fal se tre as ur y ch eck req ui res th e go ve rn m en t to pr ov e (1 ) th at Ji rak 4

pa ss ed a Uni t e d S t a t e s Treas ur y ch eck ; (2 ) th at th e ch eck bo re a fo rg ed or fal se ly

m ad e en do rs em en t; (3 ) th at Ji rak pa ss ed th e ch eck wit h th e in te nt to de frau d; an d (4 )

th at Ji rak act ed kn owi ng ly an d wil lfu ll y

. Uni te d St at es v. Ro sa rio

, 11 8 F.3 d 16 0, 16 3 (3 d C ir. 1 99 7)

.

Mai l frau d req ui res th e go ve rn m en t to pr ov e "( 1 ) a sc he m e to de frau d by 5

m ean s of m at eri al fal se rep res en ta ti on s or pr om is e s , ( 2 ) in te nt to de frau d[ ,] (3 )

reas on ab le fo res eeab il it y th at th e m ai l wou l d b e u s e d

, an d (4 ) th e m ai l was us ed in

fu rth eran ce of so m e es se nt ia l st ep in th e sc he m e." Uni te d St at es v. Park er, 36 4 F.3 d

93 4, 9 43 (8t h C ir. 2 00 4)

.

-8

-joi nt ly wit h Kin ge ry , he l ack ed th e n eces sa ry in te nt to de frau d. Jir ak m is pl aces th e

vi ct im of hi s frau d he re– th e vi ct im of Ji rak 's sc he m e was t he go ve rn m en t, no t

Kin ge ry

. Rat he r, su ffi ci en t ev id en ce es ta bl is he d, as th e go ve rn m en t was req ui red to

pr ov e, th at Ji rak vi ol at ed § 13 41 whe n he se nt

, th ro ug h th e m ai l, the am en de d 20 05

ret ur n , w h ic h fal se ly rep res en te d th e ta x refu nd am ou nt

. See DeMi er v. Uni te d

St at es , 61 6 F.2 d 36 6, 36 9 (8 th Ci r. 19 80 ) ("I t is en ou gh if [th e de fen da nt is ] act ua te d

by an in te nt io n to de frau d th e pe rs o n s t o w h o m th e fal se st at em en ts are m ad e."

(al te rat i o n i n o r i g in al an d qu ot at io n om it te d) ). Bas ed on th e ev id en ce th at Ji rak

co m pl et ed an d fil ed a 20 05 ta x ret ur n, bu t ch os e to la te r am en d it

, m is rep res en ti ng th e

types of in co m e rece iv ed fro m fic ti ti ou s in ve st m en ts , t he re was su ffi ci en t ev id en ce

fo r a reas on ab le jury to in fer th at Ji rak act ed wit h an in te nt to de frau d. Uni te d St at es

v. Beh r, 33 F.3 d 10 33

, 10 35 (8 th Ci r. 19 94 ) ( " D ire ct ev id en ce of in te nt

. . . is no t

req u i r e d ; t h e req ui si te in te nt m ay be in ferr ed fro m al l th e fact s an d ci rcu m st an ces

. . . . ).

Fi na ll y , as rel at ed to co un t fiv e, ag gr av at ed id en ti ty th eft

, Ji rak 's arg um en t th at

th e ev id e n c e d i d no t es ta bl is h an "i nt en t to de frau d" li ke wis e fai ls be cau se th e

g o v e r nm en t was no t req ui red to pr ov e an "i nt en t to de frau d" on th is co un t. Uni t e d

St at es v. Hin es , 47 2 F.3 d 10 38

, 10 39 (8 th Ci r. 20 07 ) (p er cu ria m ) ("To su pp or t a

co nv ic ti on fo r ag gr av at ed id en ti ty th e f t

, th e go ve rn m en t m

us t pr ov e th at th e

de fen da nt (1 ) kn owi ng ly us ed (2 ) th e 'm ean s of ide nt ifi cat io n' of ano th er pers on (3 )

wit h o u t l a wfu l au th or it y (4 ) du rin g an d in rel at io n to a vi ol at io n of 42 U.S.C. §

40 8( a)(7 )(B) ( mi s u s e of a so ci al se cu rit y nu m be r).")

. Afte r rev ie win g th e reco rd

ev id en ce, we co nc lu de t h e r e was su ffi ci en t ev id en ce fo r a reas on ab le jury to fin d

Ji rak gu il ty of ag gr av at ed id en ti ty the ft.

-9

-B. Mot io n in Limine

Pri or to tri al

, th e go ve rn m en t fil ed th ree m ot io ns in li m in e, an d rel ev an t he re,

th e th ird m ot io n so ug ht to ba r ad m is si on of ev id en ce of "al le ge d rel ia nc e on th e ta x

ad vi ce [J ira k] rece iv ed ." On app eal

, Ji rak ch al le ng es th e d is tri ct co ur t's de ci si on to

gr an t th e th ird m ot io n in li m in e, as se rti ng th at hi s in te nt in of feri ng su ch ev id en ce

was to sh ow th at he m ad e th e rel ev an t fil in gs in go od fai th

. Ji rak at te m pt ed to of fer

ev id en ce il lu st rat in g th e ad vi ce he rece i v e d f r om a pu rp or te d ta x se rv ic e co m pa ny

kn own as Lib ert y Tree. The di st ric t co ur t ex cl ud ed th e ev id en ce, rea s o n i n g t h at it

was irr el ev an t u n d e r Fed eral Ru le of Evi de nc e 40 2 be cau se it was so un reas on ab le

it co ul d no t su pp or t a go od fai th rel ia nc e de fen se an d th at th e ev id en ce was

in ad m is si bl e pu rs ua nt to Ru le 40 3 b e c a u s e i t pr es en te d a da ng er of co nf us in g th e

is su e s fo r th e jury, wou ld cau se un du e de la y an d a was te of ti m e. "We rev ie w th e

di st ric t co ur t's e vi de nt ia ry ru li ng s, in cl ud in g it s ru li ng on m ot io ns in li m in e, fo r an

ab us e o f di sc ret io n." Uni te d S ta te s v . Pari sh , 60 6 F .3d 48 0, 4 86 (8t h C ir. 2 01 0)

.

Ji rak in si st s th at a de fen da nt in a cri m in al ta x tri al "m u s t be pe rm it te d to

p r e s e n t e v i de nc e sh owi ng wha t he be li ev ed th e la w to be at th e ti m e of hi s al le ge d

cri m in a l c o n d u c t ." Ji rak co nt en ds Ch eek v. Uni te d St at es , 49 8 U.S. 19 2 (1 99 1)

, ad va nc es hi s arg um en t. Ch eek

, ho wev er, is di st in gu is ha bl e fro m th is cas e. In Ch eek

, th e pe ti ti on er was ch arg ed wit h si x cou nt s of will fu ll y fai li ng to fil e fed eral in co m e

ta x ret ur ns in vi ol at io n of 26 U.S.C. § 72 03 an d th ree co un ts of wil lfu ll y at te m pt in g

to ev ad e in co m e ta xe s in vi ol at io n of 26 U.S

. C

. § 7 2 0 1

. 49 8 U.S. at 19 4. The

pe ti ti on er's de fen se in Ch eek was th at he si nc erel y be li ev ed t ha t th e ta x la ws were

un c o ns ti tu ti on al ly en fo rced

, th us he act ed wit ho ut th e req ui red wil lfu ln es s. Id

. at

1 9 6

. Th e Su pr em e Co ur t reco gn iz ed th at Ch eek tu rn ed on th e de fin it io n of

wil lfu ln es s in 26 U.S.C. §§ 72 01 an d 72 03

. Id

. at 1 9 4

. Th e C ou rt co nc lu de d th at

wil lfu ln es s req ui red pr oo f of "v ol un ta ry , in te nt io na l vi ol at io n of a kn own le ga l du ty."

Id

. at 20 1. The Co ur t fu rth er cl ari fie d th at wil lfu ln es s requ ire s th at th e de fen da nt is

-1 0-aware of th e du ty, bu t t ha t t he de fen da nt can no t be aware of th e du ty whe re the re is

a go od fai th m is un de rs ta nd in g, reg ard le ss of whe th er or no t th at mi s u n d ers ta nd in g

is ob jecti ve ly reas on ab le

. Id

. at 20 2. The Co ur t di d

, ho wev er, di st in gu is h a

de fen da nt 's go od fai th be li ef th at he was act in g wit hi n th e la w fro m a de fen se ba se d

on th e de fen da nt 's vi ews th at th e ta x laws are un co ns ti tu ti on al or ot he rwis e in va li d,

th e la tt er o f whi ch do es no t s up po rt a go od fai th de fen se . Id. at 20 5- 06

.

Unl ik e th e cri m es ch a r g e d in Ch eek

, 18 U.S.C. § 28 7 do es no t req ui re

"wi ll fu ln es s." As th e Co ur t in Ch eek no te d, "[t ]he ge ne ral ru le th at ig no ran ce of th e

la w or a m is ta ke of la w is no de fen se to cri m in al pr os ecu ti on is de ep ly ro ot ed in th e

Am eri can le ga l syste m ," an d Co ng res s can so fte n th e im pa ct of th is co m

m on la w

pr es um pt io n b y m ak in g " sp eci fic in te nt to vi ol at e th e la w an el em en t" of th e cri m e.

49 8 U.S. at 19 9- 20 0. Co ng res s ha s no t do ne so he re. Thu s Ch eek do es no t pe rs ua de

us to co nc lu de th at ev id en ce of a go od fai th be li ef d e f e n s e i s rel ev an t. See Uni te d

St at es v. Hi ld eb ran dt , 96 1 F .2d 11 6, 11 8- 19 (8 th Ci r. 19 92 ) (co nc lu di ng Ch eek di d

no t m an da te a go od fai th de fen se in st ru ct io n be cau se it s ho ld in g was pr em is ed on th e

co m pl ex it y of th e ta x la ws, an d th e de fen da nt in Hil de br an dt was co nv ic te d un de r a

st at ut e si m il ar t o § 28 7– 18 U.S.C. § 1 00 1)

.

Mo reo ve r, Ji rak as se rts th at he sh ou ld ha ve be en a l l o w e d to pr es en t th e

ev id en ce th at he rel ie d on Lib ert y Tree be cau se "[g ]ood fai th rel ia nc e on an ex pe rt ta x

pr e p a r e r may b e a de fen se to a ta x ev as io n ch arg e, bu t on ly if th e ta xp ay er m ak es

co m pl et e di sc lo su re of al l th e rel ev an t fact s." Uni te d St at es v. Meyer, 80 8 F.2 d 13 04

, 13 06 (8 th Ci r. 19 87 ) (ci ta ti on om it te d)

. J i r a k

, ho wev er, was no t ch arg ed wit h ta x

ev as io n no r ev en ch arg ed un de r th e In te rn al Rev en ue Co de

. Bu t e v en as su m in g,

wit ho ut ho ld in g, th at rel ia nc e on an ex pe rt ta x pr ep arer is a va li d de fen se to th e § 28 7

cl ai m s he re, th e di st ric t co ur t d id no t ab us e it s d is cret io n i n ex cl ud in g th e ev id en ce

as un reas on ab le

, be cau se th e ad vi ce rece iv ed was no t fro m an ex pe rt ta x pr ep arer , as

it was no t from an at to rn ey or an acco un ta nt

. McGra w v. C.I.R., 38 4 F.3d 96 5, 97 3

( 8 t h Ci r. 20 04 ) ("Go od fai th rel ia nc e on ex pe rt ad vi ce of a ta x pr ep arer (i.e

., a n

-1 1-at to rn ey or acco un ta nt ) m ay be a de fen se

. . . ."). Nor d i d Ji rak of fer ev id en ce

in di cat in g he ga ve th e pu rp or te d ex pe rt co m pl et e di sc lo su re, as req ui red

. Meyer, 80 8

F.2 d at 13 06 ( n o t in g th e de fen se is on ly av ai la bl e if th e ta xp ay er m ad e co m pl et e

d i s c l o su re of al l of th e rel ev an t fact s)

. The ev id en ce of fere d di d no t es ta bl is h th e

el em en ts of th e de fen se , an d th us th e d is tri ct co ur t d id no t abu se it s di sc ret io n her e.

See Uni te d St at es v. Luk er, 39 5 F .3d 83 0, 8 33 (8t h C ir. 2 00 5) (up ho ld in g th e gr an t

of a m ot io n in li m in e to ex cl ud e ev id en ce in te nd ed by th e de fen da nt to es ta bl is h a

de fen se , whe re th e de fen da nt 's pr of fere d ev id en ce fai le d to sa ti sf y th e ne ces sa ry

pr ereq ui si te s o f th e d efen se ).

C. Mot io ns to Co nti nue

Ji rak as se rts th at th e co ur t ab us ed it s di sc ret io n in de nyin g hi s m ul ti pl e m ot io ns

to co nt in ue t h e t r i a l b ecau se it fai le d to ad eq ua te ly co ns id er th e fact th at he was

pr oc eed in g pr o se , an d, th us , he di d no t ha ve ad eq ua te ti m e to pr ep are th e cas e. W e

rev ie w a di st ric t co ur t's de ni al of a req ue st fo r co nt in ua nc e fo r an ab us e of di sc ret io n

an d wil l on ly rev ers e if th e m ov in g pa rty was pr ejud ic ed by th e de ni al

. Uni te d St at es

v. Co tro ne o, 89 F.3 d 51 0, 51 4 ( 8 t h C i r

. 1 9 9 6)

. "Di st ric t co ur ts are affo rd ed br oa d

di sc ret io n whe n ru li ng on req ue st s fo r co nt in ua nc es ," bu t "[c ]ont in ua nc es ge ne ral ly

are no t fav or ed an d sh ou ld be gr an te d on ly whe n th e pa rty req ue st in g on e ha s sh own

a co m pe ll in g re as on ." Id

.

Ji r a k w a s in it ia ll y in di ct ed on Nov em be r 16

, 20 11

, an d pr oc eed ed wit h

ap po in te d co un se l un ti l May 15

, 20 12

. Afte r th at Ji rak m ov ed to co nt in ue twi ce, bo th

of whi ch were de ni ed

. Ji rak ha d ov er on e m on th to pr ep are fo r tri al

, ho wev er, whi ch

was su ffi ci en t ti m e in th is cas e. Fu rth er, on ap pe al

, Ji rak do es no t of fer an y arg um en t

as to ho w he was pr ejud ic ed by th e de ni al

, an d we se e no ne

. Bec au se hi s ap po in te d

co un se l rem ai ne d as st an db y co un se l whi le J i r a k p r o c eed ed pr o se , co un se l was

ad eq ua te ly info rm ed an d a bl e to rep res en t Ji rak at tri al . Th us , th e d is tri ct co ur t d id

-1 2-no t ab us e it s br oa d di sc ret io n he re. See Uni te d St at es v. Thu rm on , 36 8 F.3 d 84 8, 85 2

(8 th Ci r. 20 04 ) (n ot in g th e di st r i c t co ur t di d no t ab us e it s di sc ret io n be cau se th e

ap pe ll an t fa il ed to sh ow h e su ffer ed pre jud ic e).

D. Spec ia l Co ndi tio n o f Supe rv is ed Rel ea se

Fi na ll y , Ji rak as se rts th at th e se nt en ci ng co ur t ab us ed it s di sc ret io n in im po si ng

a "t ot al ba n" on hi s co nt act wit h hi s ch il dr en as a co nd it io n of su pe rv is ed rel eas e.

Gen eral ly, we rev ie w "t he im po si ti on of sp eci al co nd it io ns fo r ab us e o f d i sc ret io n,

bu t whe n a de fen da nt ha s fai le d to pr op erl y ob ject to th e im

po si ti on of th e co nd it io n

at th e se nt en ci ng he ari ng ," w e rev ie w fo r pl ai n erro r. Uni te d Stat es v. Rob ert s, 68 7

F.3 d 10 96

, 11 00 (8 th Ci r. 20 12 ). The pa rti es di sa gr ee on ou r st an da rd of rev ie w, bu t

we ne ed no t de ci de whi ch st an da rd ap pl ie s he re, as th e res ul t is th e sa m e un de r ei th er

st an da rd . See Un it ed Sta te s v . Cam p, 4 10 F.3d 10 42 , 10 44 (8t h C ir. 2 00 5)

.

As th e go ve rn m en t ack no wled ge s, th e se nt en ci ng co ur t di d no t im po se a "t ot al

ba n" on Ji rak 's co nt act wit h hi s ch il dr en , bu t th ere is a di sc rep an cy be twee n th e or al

pr on ou nc em en t of th e co nd it io n of su pe rv is ed rel eas e an d th e writ te n jud gm en t. At

se nt en ci ng , th e co ur t im

po se d a sp eci al co nd it io n st at in g, "you are to ha ve no co nt act

du rin g y ou r te rm of im

pr is on m en t or y ou r te rm of su pe rv is ed rel eas e wit h [Kin ge ry ]

a n d h e r fam il y m em

be rs in pe rs on or by a th ird -p art y ." The writ te n jud gm en t

, ho wev er, s ta te d t ha t J ira k " sh al l h av e no co nt act du rin g [h is ] te rm of i m pr is on m en t

or [h is ] te rm of su pe rv is io n wit h [Kin ge ry ] an d th ei r fam il y m em be rs , in pe rs on or by

a th ird pa rty." Bec au se of th is di sc rep an cy , J ira k read s th e co nd it io n of su pe rv is ed

rel eas e as im

pl em en ti ng a to ta l b an on hi s co nt act wit h h is ch il dr en

.

The tra ns cri pt of th e se nt en ci ng he ari ng in di cat es th at th e co ur t di d no t in te nd

t o i mpo se su ch a ba n, bu t rat he r in te nd ed to ba n Ji rak 's co nt act wit h Kin ge ry

. Th e

co ur t no te d th at Ji rak wou ld "h av e to wor k th ro ug h an ot he r fam il y m em be r an d ha ve

t h a t fam il y m em

be r be th e in te rm ed ia ry be twee n [h is ] ex -wif e an d [h im se lf] t o

-1 3-arra ng e vi si ta ti on wit h [h is ] ch il dr en " an d wen t on to st at e th at "t he Pro ba ti on Offi ce

wil l wor k wit h [J ira k] in he lp in g [h im ] se t up a m ech an is m by whi ch [h e] can arra ng e

to ha ve vi si ta ti on wit h [h is ] ch il dr e n

. " Giv en th is co ll oq uy, an d be cau se whe re an

"o ral pr on ou nc em en t and writ te n judg m en t con fli ct

, th e or al se nt en ce con tro ls ," w e

rem an d wit h in st ru ct io ns to am e n d t h e w rit te n jud gm en t to co nf or m to th e or al

pr on ou nc em en t of sp eci al co nd it io n two

. Uni te d St at es v. Mo rai s, 67 0 F.3 d 88 9, 89 5

(8 th Cir .), cert . den ie d, 1 33 S. Ct. 3 11 (20 12 ).

II I. CONCLUSI ON

The jud gm en t of th e di st ric t co ur t is affi rm ed

, bu t we rem an d wit h in st ru ct io ns

th at th e di st ric t co ur t m od ify it s writ te n jud g men t t o c o nf or m to it s or al

pr on ou nc em en t o f sp eci al co nd it io n t wo o f su pe rv is ed rel eas e.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-1 4-