NOT RECOMMENDED F OR F ULL-TEXT PUBLICATION F ile Nam e: 12a0859n.06 No. 11-5212 UNITED STAT ES COURT OF AP P EALS F OR THE S IXTH CIRCUIT
UNI TED STATES OF AMERI CA, Plaintiff-Appellee , v. J OHN L EE V A N A R S D A L E , Def endant- Appellant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APPEALFROM THE U NI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DI STRI CT OF KE NTUCKY

Be fore : CL AY and SUTTO N, Circuit J udg es; RI CE, District J udg e. * SUTTON, Circuit Judge

. A jury convicted J ohn L ee VanAr sdale of willfully making false statements on his tax returns. VanAr sdale arg ues that the primary prosec ution witness was a liar and that the gover

nment’s ot her evidence does not suffice to convict him

. Be ca use j uries, not judge s,
ma ke witness-cr edibility deter minations and beca

use the evidenc e o th e r

w is e s u p p o r ts th e c o n v ic ti o n , we a ffirm. I
. VanAr sdale owned his own busine s s , Sa v v a g e T e c h n ic a l Se r

v ic e s . Wh e n V anAr sdale started the company , his acc ountant told him that he neede d to separ ate his business and persona l expenses, beca use he could not deduct personal ex penses on his tax returns. R. 66 at 8 8

– 9 3
. Ne v er theless, VanAr sdale reg ularly paid for persona l expenses from the company chec king acc ount and with the
The Honor able Walter H . Rice, United States District Judge f or the Southern District of * Ohio, sitti ng by

desig nation.No. 11-5212

United States v. VanArsdale company ’s cre dit car ds. See, e.g. , R. 63 at 175–76, Pag eI D 336–37; id. at 121–22, Pag eI D 283–84; R. 64 at 144–46. When VanAr sdale’s bookkeepe r, Ba rbar a Bunc e, resisted his instructions to trea t persona l expenditures as business expenses, VanAr sdale thre atene d to fire he r. R. 65 at 34. VanAr sdale eventua lly followed throug h on the threa t. After he fired Bunc e, she told the I RS ab o u t t h e m i s repr esente d expenses. R. 64 at 167–68. The I RS deter mined that VanAr sdale had improperly deducte d $273,540 from 2002 to 2005. R. 67 at 36. A g rand jury indicted him on four counts of willfully

filing false tax returns, see R.1; 26 U.S.C. § 7206(1), and a jury convicted him on all four a fter a

seven- day

trial. I I
. When a criminal defe ndant challeng es the sufficie ncy of the evidenc e supporting his conviction, he fac es a steep cl i m b

. We may overturn the jury ’s verdict only if, afte r “viewing the evidenc e in the light most fa vorable to the prosec ution, [no] ra tional tr ier of fac t c ould ha ve found the essential elements of the crime bey ond a rea sonable doubt.” Jack son v. Virginia , 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979). The essential elements of this offe nse wer e three : (1) VanAr sdale willfully filed a tax return; (2) the return decla red it was m ad e u n der penalty of perjury ; and (3) VanAr sdale did not believe the return was “true and corr ect as to ever y materia l matter” when h e fi l ed it. 26 U.S.C. § 7206(1); United States v. Tarwat er , 308 F.3d 494, 504 (6th Cir. 2002). VanAr sdale challeng es the g overnme nt’s proof on the f inal element. Ample e v id e n c e s h o w e d th a t V a n A r s d a le k

new his tax returns understate d his taxable income by overstating h is business deductions. His bookkeepe r, Bunc e, testified that VanAr sdale repe atedly told her to cate g orize persona l expenses as business expenses beca use he wanted to pay few er taxes. - 2 -No. 11-5212

United States v. VanArsdale R. 64 at 152–55. Another witness, Ky le Ba ber, testified that he rente d space to VanAr sdale for $200

a month, but VanAr sdale paid him $1000 by company chec k eac h month and asked Ba ber to return the differ ence to him in ca sh. R. 63 at 47–48, Page I D 208–09. When Ba ber told Va

nArsdale that

an I RS ag ent had q u es t i o ned him about the pay ments, VanAr sdale told Ba ber he should say —untruthfully

—he was retu rn i n g t h e money to VanAr sdale to pay off a debt. Id. at 50–51, Pag eI D 211–12. VanAr sdale lied to the I RS ag ent as well, telling her that pay ments to his wife wer e for “tra nslating documents,” R. 67 at 46 , wh en t hey wer e actua lly for his portion of their share d living expenses, R. 64 a t 90–107. This combination of evidenc e, showing he knew he improperly repor ted persona l expenses as business deductions and tried to cover up the misdeed when the I RS beg an its investiga tion, suffices to support the ve rdict. VanAr sdale insists that this was all a mistake—that he trusted Bunc e to cate g orize his expenses and did not rea liz e she w as doing it incorre ctly

. Br
. at 21–22. The jury should not have believed her contra

ry testimony , he adds, beca use she was “an admitted liar” and lacke d documentation. Br
. at 18. But this is an a rg ument for a

jury , not a court of appea ls. “I n assessing the sufficie ncy of the evidenc e, we do not weig h the evidenc e, assess the cre dibilit y of the witnesses,
or substitut e our judgme nt for that of the jury .” United States v. Paige , 470 F.3d 603, 608 (6th Cir. 2006). We instead draw all infere nces, including infere nces about cre dibilit y , in favor of the jury ’s verdic t. Id. Be cause VanAr sdale’s a rg ument turns on showing Bunc e wa s not credible—a n issue the jury resolved a g ainst him—it nece ssarily fails.

- 3 -No. 11-5212

United States v. VanArsdale I I I
. For these re asons, we a ffirm.

- 4 -