Source: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/133/758/590439/
Timestamp: 2020-05-26 13:56:55
Document Index: 477094260

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1956', '§ 1291', '§ 1956', '§ 1956', '§ 1956', '§ 1956', '§ 103', '§ 2255', '§ 1956', '§ 103', '§ 103', '§ 103', '§ 103', '§ 1956', '§ 103', '§ 103', '§ 103', '§ 103', '§ 1507', '§ 1507', '§ 103', '§ 1507', '§ 103', '§ 750', '§ 1507', '§ 1507', '§ 1507', '§ 1956', '§ 1956', '§ 1956']

United States of America, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Boleslaw Wolny, Defendant-appellant, 133 F.3d 758 (10th Cir. 1998) :: Justia
Justia › US Law › Case Law › Federal Courts › Courts of Appeals › Tenth Circuit › 1998 › United States of America, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Boleslaw Wolny, Defendant-appellant
United States of America, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Boleslaw Wolny, Defendant-appellant, 133 F.3d 758 (10th Cir. 1998)
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit - 133 F.3d 758 (10th Cir. 1998) Jan. 6, 1998
Defendant Boleslaw Wolny appeals his conviction for attempted money laundering, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a) (3) (B). Mr. Wolny challenges the sufficiency of the evidence, the admission of allegedly perjurious testimony, the district court's refusal to take judicial notice of an agency regulation, and the rejection of a proposed jury instruction on the theory of the defense. We exercise jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm.I. BACKGROUND
Mr. Wolny contends that the evidence was insufficient for his conviction. "The sufficiency of the evidence is a question of law subject to de novo review." United States v. Markum, 4 F.3d 891, 893 (10th Cir. 1993). "Evidence is sufficient to support a conviction if the evidence and the reasonable inferences drawn therefrom, when viewed in the light most favorable to the government, would allow a reasonable jury to find [the] defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt." Id.
Mr. Wolny argues that the evidence was insufficient to establish the "intent to conceal" element of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a) (3) (B). An essential element under that section is intent "to conceal or disguise the nature, location, source, ownership, or control of property believed to be the proceeds of specified unlawful activity." 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a) (3) (B) (1994).
In United States v. Contreras, 108 F.3d 1255 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 118 S. Ct. 116, 139 L. Ed. 2d 68 (1997), we identified evidence that can be probative of an intent to conceal, including:
Id. at 1264-65. Contreras was decided under subsection (a) (1) (B) (i) of 18 U.S.C. § 1956, not under subsection (a) (3) (B), under which Mr. Wolny was convicted. See Contreras, 108 F.3d at 1264 ("The jury in this case convicted Ms. Contreras of violating 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a) (1) (B) (i)...."). The parties believe, and we agree, that the differences between these two subsections are insignificant insofar as the evidence that is probative of an intent to conceal.
Structuring the transaction to avoid attention. During the meeting in the hotel room, Mr. Wolny proposed breaking the million dollars into amounts of $10,000 or less, to avoid the necessity of filing a Currency Transaction Report (CTR). See id. at 78 (Tr. of videotaped meeting in hotel room). Under the applicable Treasury Department regulations, a CTR must be filed for any currency transaction in excess of $10,000. See 31 C.F.R. § 103.22(a) (1) (1994). Although Mr. Wolny's idea was later rejected, see Aple's Supl. App. at 78-79 (Tr. of videotaped meeting in hotel room), it is significant that he proposed evading the CTR requirement: " [l]egitimate business transactions are not concerned about the ramifications of filing a CTR." Aple's Br. at 21.
Mr. Wolny contends that the source of the trust funds would have been revealed by a CTR that the defendants planned to file. According to Mr. Wolny, the CTR would have disclosed that Mr. Saltillo was a drug dealer. See Aplt's App. at 127 (blank CTR form, which asks for the " [o]ccupation, profession, or business" of the " [p]erson on ... whose behalf this transaction was conducted").
Mr. Wolny moved for a mistrial in the district court on the ground that the government knowingly used perjured testimony. See Aplt's App. at 196-97 (Tr. of mots. & instr. conf.). The district court denied Mr. Wolny's motion. See id. at 197. On appeal, we review the district court's decision for abuse of discretion. See United States v. Gabaldon, 91 F.3d 91, 94 (10th Cir. 1996).
Mr. Wolny contends that we should review de novo, rather than for abuse of discretion. He bases his argument on Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690, 116 S. Ct. 1657, 134 L. Ed. 2d 911 (1996), which held that appellate determinations of reasonable suspicion and probable cause must be made de novo. See id. at ----, 116 S. Ct. at 1662. Mr. Wolny contends that Ornelas requires de novo review of all mixed questions of fact and law, whether they be probable-cause determinations, decisions on mistrials, or something else.
Knowing use of perjured testimony by the prosecution violates a defendant's due process rights. See Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150, 153, 92 S. Ct. 763, 765-66, 31 L. Ed. 2d 104 (1972); see also United States v. Mills, 704 F.2d 1553, 1565 (11th Cir. 1983). For a mistrial to be declared, a defendant must show: (1) that the testimony was false, (2) that it was material, and (3) that it was knowingly and intentionally used by the government to obtain a conviction. Cf. McBride v. United States, 446 F.2d 229, 232 (10th Cir. 1971) (considering a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate a conviction).
Mr. Wolny contends that false testimony was given at his trial by Mr. Garfinkle. At trial, Mr. Garfinkle testified that he told Mr. Wolny that Mr. Saltillo was "a major Mexican drug dealer."1 Aplt's App. at 96 (Tr. of trial test. of Mr. Garfinkle). Mr. Wolny argues that this testimony was inconsistent with Mr. Garfinkle's pre-trial deposition testimony, where Mr. Garfinkle said that he did not inform Mr. Wolny about the source of Mr. Saltillo's money.2 See id. at 101-02 (quoting relevant portions of the deposition). What Mr. Garfinkle said to Mr. Wolny is relevant to whether Mr. Wolny had reason to believe that the funds in question were the proceeds of unlawful activity. See 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a) (3) (B) (requiring that a person violating the statute "believe [ ] [the funds in question] to be the proceeds of specified unlawful activity").
"Contradictions and changes in a witness's testimony alone do not constitute perjury and do not create an inference, let alone prove, that the prosecution knowingly presented perjured testimony." Tapia v. Tansy, 926 F.2d 1554, 1563 (10th Cir. 1991). See also United States v. Holladay, 566 F.2d 1018, 1019 (5th Cir. 1978) ("Presentation of a witness who recants or contradicts his prior testimony is not to be confused with eliciting perjury.").
Mr. Wolny argues that the district court erred in refusing to take judicial notice of the contents of 31 C.F.R. § 103, which governs the filing of CTRs. See 31 C.F.R. § 103.22. Mr. Wolny asked the district court to admit into evidence, via judicial notice, either a summary of § 103 or the text of the regulation itself. See Aplt's App. at 12-14 ("Request for Judicial Notice"). We review a district court's decision to admit or exclude evidence for abuse of discretion. See United States v. McIntosh, 124 F.3d 1330, 1338 (10th Cir. 1997).
A judge takes judicial notice when he recognizes the truth of a matter that is either "generally known" or "capable of accurate and ready determination by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned." Fed.R.Evid. 201(b). Mr. Wolny claims that judicial notice of § 103's contents would have clarified for the jury what information is required in a CTR. Mr. Wolny says that such clarification would have aided the jury in evaluating his defense that the defendants' plans to file a CTR negated the "intent to conceal" element of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a) (3) (B).
Exclusion of evidence constitutes an abuse of discretion only if it causes "actual prejudice" (i.e., has a " 'substantial and injurious effect or influence in determining the jury's verdict.' "). United States v. Martinez, 76 F.3d 1145, 1148 (10th Cir. 1996) (quoting United States v. Fingado, 934 F.2d 1163, 1164 (10th Cir. 1991) (quoting United States v. Lane, 474 U.S. 438, 439, 106 S. Ct. 725, 726, 88 L. Ed. 2d 814 (1986))). In this case, the lack of judicial notice of § 103's contents resulted in no prejudice whatsoever: A blank CTR form was introduced at trial. See Aple's Supl. App. at 117-18 (blank CTR form). By examining this form, the jury could see what information was required, and judicial notice of § 103's contents would have been superfluous.
However, Rule 201 does not apply to judicial notice of facts such as the contents of § 103. The Rule "governs only judicial notice of 'adjudicative' facts," Fed.R.Evid. 201(a); it does not deal with judicial notice of "legislative facts." See Fed.R.Evid. 201 advisory committee notes. "Adjudicative facts are simply the facts of the particular case." Id. Legislative facts, on the other hand, "have relevance to legal reasoning and the lawmaking process," id.; they " 'are established truths, facts or pronouncements that do not change from case to case but apply universally.' " United States v. Coffman, 638 F.2d 192, 195 (10th Cir. 1980) (quoting United States v. Gould, 536 F.2d 216, 220 (8th Cir. 1976)). The contents of § 103 are obviously legislative, not adjudicative, facts and thus are not governed by the judicial notice provisions of Rule 201.
Mr. Wolny also relies on 44 U.S.C. § 1507 in arguing that judicial notice was mandatory. Section 1507 requires judicial notice of provisions of the Federal Register. See 44 U.S.C. § 1507 ("The contents of the Federal Register shall be judicially noticed ....") (emphasis added). The pertinent portions of § 103 appeared in the Federal Register. See 52 Fed.Reg. 11442 (1987), as amended at 53 Fed.Reg. 777 (1988), 53 Fed.Reg. 4138 (1988), 58 Fed.Reg. 13547 (1993). Thus, § 1507 would seem to suggest that judicial notice of § 103 was required, and that the district court erred in not taking such notice. See Poindexter v. United States, 777 F.2d 231, 236 (5th Cir. 1985) (noting that judicial notice of 32 C.F.R. § 750.55 was required under § 1507).
Although a CTR's purpose is not an adjudicative fact governed by Rule 201, it is a fact subject to judicial notice under § 1507, as a matter that appeared in the Federal Register. See 61 Fed.Reg. 18205 (1996) (CTRs "provid [e] usable information to enforcement officials and creat [e] a deterrent against attempts to misuse the financial system"). However, we do not see what relevance a CTR's purpose, as opposed to the information required to complete one, had to the trial proceedings: to evaluate Mr. Wolny's defense that a CTR would have revealed the source of the trust funds, the jurors needed to know what information CTRs require, not why they require it. Rule 402 of the Federal Rules of Evidence states that " [e]vidence which is not relevant is not admissible." Fed.R.Evid. 402. We cannot imagine that, in enacting § 1507, Congress intended to override Rule 402, and make judicial notice mandatory, when a matter that appeared in the Federal Register is irrelevant to the proceeding at hand.
Mr. Wolny argues that the district court erred in refusing to give a proposed jury instruction on the theory of the defense. It is reversible error not to instruct the jury on a theory of the defense that is supported by the evidence and the law. See United States v. Scafe, 822 F.2d 928, 932 (10th Cir. 1987). However, a "theory of the defense" instruction is not required if it would simply give the jury a clearer understanding of the issues. See United States v. Grey, 56 F.3d 1219, 1222 (10th Cir. 1995). Rather, a "theory of the defense" instruction is required only if, without the instruction, the district court's instructions were erroneous or inadequate. See id. We review the instructions de novo to determine whether, as a whole, they adequately apprised the jury of the issues and the governing law. See United States v. Smith, 63 F.3d 956, 965 (10th Cir. 1995), vacated on other grounds, 516 U.S. 1105, 116 S. Ct. 900, 133 L. Ed. 2d 834 (1996); Grey, 56 F.3d at 1222.
The government suggests that we should review for abuse of discretion. It is true that we "review [ a] district court's refusal to submit a requested instruction to the jury for abuse of discretion." United States v. Starnes, 109 F.3d 648, 650 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 117 S. Ct. 2529, 138 L. Ed. 2d 1029 (1997); see also Grey, 56 F.3d at 1222 (The appellants "have failed to demonstrate an abuse of discretion."). However, the ultimate standard of review is de novo--to determine, as explained above, whether the instructions as a whole adequately apprised the jury of the issues and the governing law. See Smith, 63 F.3d at 965. "Discretion" comes into play in that the district judge has substantial discretion in wording the instructions, as long as they adequately present the law and the issues. See Grey, 56 F.3d at 1222; see also United States v. Davis, 953 F.2d 1482, 1492 (10th Cir. 1992) (" [A] district judge has substantial discretion in formulating the instructions; our review is confined to determining whether the instructions as a whole sufficiently cover the issues presented by the evidence and constitute correct statements of the law.").
The defense's first theory was the government had not proven that Mr. Wolny believed the proceeds were drug money. See Aplt's App. at 15 (proposed jury instr.). This theory was related to the requirement that a person violating the statute "believe [ the funds in question] to be the proceeds of specified unlawful activity." 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a) (3) (B).
The defense's second theory was that the government had not proven that Mr. Wolny intended to conceal "the nature, source, location, ownership or control" of the currency. Aplt's App. at 15 (proposed jury instr.); see also 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a) (3) (B). The proffered instruction would have told the jurors that they could find that the "intent to conceal" element was negated by the defendants' plan to file a CTR. See Aplt's App. at 15-16 (proposed jury instr.).
We do not believe the district court erred in refusing to give the jury Mr. Wolny's proposed instruction. The theory of the defense was simply that the government failed to prove essential elements of the offense. In the instructions given, the district court informed the jury about the elements of the offense and about the government's burden of proving each element beyond a reasonable doubt. See id. at 29, 31 (instrs. nos. 12, 14). Mr. Wolny's proposed instruction did not concern an affirmative defense, of which the district court did not apprise the jury. Because "the substance of [the proposed] instruction was contained in the charge given to the jury," United States v. Pinto, 838 F.2d 426, 436 (10th Cir. 1988), Mr. Wolny was not entitled to a separate instruction on the theory of the defense.
2. Instruction on the "second" element. Mr. Wolny argues that the district court erred in instructing the jury on the proof needed to establish the "second" element of the offense. This element required the government to establish that the defendant believed the funds to be the proceeds of unlawful activity. See 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a) (3) (B).