Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/321207498/United-States-v-Samuel-Moore-III-4th-Cir-2012
Timestamp: 2019-04-18 10:56:43+00:00

Document:
in which Judge Duncan and Judge Cain joined.
challenges his sentence. For the following reasons, we affirm.
C of his Form 1040 tax returns.
The second income category comprised dancer fees and fines.
recovered during the search of the Club.
The third income category comprised disc jockey payments.
patrons withdrawing cash from the ATMs.
the L.A. Diner account. Most patrons, however, paid with cash.
in 2006, and $693,980 in 2007.
(E.D. Va. 2011) (Moore I).
be helpful in analyzing financial aspects of the investigation.
seized documents and money from the Club.
tax evasion for tax year 2007, in violation of 26 U.S.C. 7201.
new trial and a motion for a judgment of acquittal on Count One.
The district court denied each in separate memorandum opinions.
entitles him to a new trial on Counts Two and Three.
government argues understated his actual income by $354,050.
defendants guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. United States v.
Burgos, 94 F.3d 849, 862 (4th Cir. 1996) (en banc).
assume the sentencing exhibit figure is the correct one.
matter; and (4) the defendant acted willfully. United States v.
constituting an attempted evasion of the tax. United States v.
Cir. 1986) (internal quotation marks omitted).
it behooves him to obscure any trace of its existence.
proof: here, a modified version of the bank-deposits method.
called net taxable bank deposits.
reported by the taxpayer on his return.
Justice Criminal Tax Manual, 33.01 (2008)).
proof is independently sufficient to support the verdict here.
relied on the following specific-items evidence.
Club received in the course of its business.
fines the dancers owed and/or paid.
Clubs gross receipts for each of tax years 2005 through 2007.
understated the Clubs gross receipts for 2005, 2006, and 2007.
sufficiency of that evidence, as well.
income was higher than the reported taxable income.
United States v. Slutsky, 487 F.2d 832, 841 (2d Cir.
a misnomer, and is more accurately described as non-deposits).
deposited, in one way or another, in the Clubs bank account.
2005, the date Moore had the three ATMs installed in the Club.
is to determine a taxpayers total corrected taxable income.
2006, and $364,934 in 2007.
the amount of actual cash Moore had on hand on December 6, 2004.
boxes and deposited it in the L.A. Diner account.
to offset the first $359,000 in income as a kind of credit.
future loan repayments whenever doing so suits the taxpayer.
received after July 2005 constitutes taxable income to Moore.
specific items method of proof.
state taxes but did not deduct that amount from gross receipts.
doubt existed on the tax counts. Moore Br. 21.
not have impacted the verdict.
for the adjustment for local and state taxes, Moore still underreported his gross income for each of the years in question.
deposits and expenditures not derived from taxable income).
cash on hand when the ATMs were installed. Id.
to determine Moores cash on hand as of August 5, 2005.
the execution of that warrant.
Moore argues that the search was unlawful for two reasons.
Procedure govern criminal proceedings in the federal courts.
applying for, obtaining, and executing a federal search warrant.
a judge of a state court of record in the district. Fed. R.
federal-state investigation most recently in United States v.
in the investigation. See, e.g., [United States v.
state crime. . . .
warrant will serve and the scope of the warrant.
was narcotics and prostitution, not money laundering.
Rule 41. Moore Br. 45.
describ[e] the . . . things to be seized. U.S. Const. amend.
transferring, and/or concealment and/or expenditure of money.
other grounds by Staples v. United States, 511 U.S. 600 (1994)).
concerned, there is leeway to allow for more expansive warrants.
sufficiency of the warrants particularity.
631 F.3d 146, 153 (4th Cir. 2011) (citations omitted).
average from which to extrapolate the yearly unreported income.
notebooks happened to be particularly lucrative.
- not the higher amount argued by the government.
sheets from previous years, included all of the Clubs income.
began reporting all of the Clubs income on the daily sheets.
with it, and confusion because the jury likely would be . . .
having to guess what the foundation for the document was. Id.
more charged offenses. Moore Br. 27-28 (citing J.A. 682-83).
to the court that he now makes on appeal.
witness under Federal Rule of Evidence 608(b).
considerations of delay and waste of time under Rule 403. Id.
2007. But he never filed a return for 2007.
return, given the pendency of the criminal case.
it appears more like an argument asserting legal insufficiency.
that the failure to file was an affirmative act of evasion.
defeat any tax contemplates and charges that Mr.
and that he tried in some way to evade that tax.
income tax return for 2007.
loss can be made. U.S.S.G. 2T1.1(c)(1) n.(A).
error. United States v. Manigan, 592 F.3d 621, 626 (4th Cir.
district court adopted the latter.
sales and admissions taxes the Club had paid from 2005 to 2007.
attributable to ATM withdrawals, yielded a loss of $321,676.
offset taxes due on income the Club received later.
on the side of underestimating Moores unreported income.
to his accountant were therefore apparent.
deductions. Delfino, 510 F.3d at 472.
account. This argument fails for the reasons discussed above.
fine without sufficient explanation. Moore Br. 54.
law and promote just punishment and afford deterrence. J.A.
even while the case was proceeding to and during trial. J.A.
satisfactory explanation for the upward variance on the fine.
proceeds in the same manner.
obviously does not exceed twice that loss.

References: v.

 v.

 v.

 v. 
 v.

 v.

 v. 
 v.