Source: https://case-law.vlex.com/vid/858-f-3d-801-692771629
Timestamp: 2020-02-28 21:16:46
Document Index: 250211606

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1344', '§ 1014', '§ 1014', '§ 1001', '§ 7206', '§ 7203', '§ 666', '§ 1343', '§ 2']

858 F.3d 801 (3rd Cir. 2017), 16-1265, United States v. Fattah - Federal Cases - Case Law - VLEX 692771629
Docket Nº: 16-1265
Citation: 858 F.3d 801
Party Name: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. CHAKA FATTAH, JR., Appellant
Attorney: Eric L. Gibson [ARGUED], Paul L. Gray, Office of United States Attorney, Philadelphia, PA, Counsel for Appellee. Chaka Fattah, Jr. [ARGUED], Philadelphia FDC, Philadelphia, PA, Pro se Appellant. Ellen C. Brotman[1] [ARGUED], Radnor, PA, Counsel for Court Appointed Amicus Curiae.
Judge Panel: Before: SMITH, Chief Judge, HARDIMAN, and KRAUSE, Circuit Judges.
Officers executed sealed search warrants at the home and office of Fattah. More than two years later, a grand jury indicted Fattah on 23 counts relating to bank fraud and tax evasion. Before the indictment, the press learned about the investigation; reporters waited at Fattah’s home to report the story. At Fattah’s trial, an FBI agent admitted that he had disclosed confidential information to a ... (see full summary)
858 F.3d 801 (3rd Cir. 2017)
CHAKA FATTAH, JR., Appellant
On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. District Court No. 2-14-cr-00409-001. District Judge: The Honorable Harvey Bartle, III.
Eric L. Gibson [ARGUED], Paul L. Gray, Office of United States Attorney, Philadelphia, PA, Counsel for Appellee.
Chaka Fattah, Jr. [ARGUED], Philadelphia FDC, Philadelphia, PA, Pro se Appellant.
Ellen C. Brotman1 [ARGUED], Radnor, PA, Counsel for Court Appointed Amicus Curiae.
Before: SMITH, Chief Judge, HARDIMAN, and KRAUSE, Circuit Judges.
On February 29, 2012, law enforcement officers executed sealed search warrants at the home and office of defendant Chaka Fattah, Jr. The search occurred more than two years before Fattah was indicted, but members of the press had somehow learned about the investigation; several reporters waited at Fattah's home to report the story. How did they find out? At Fattah's trial, an FBI agent admitted that he had, over the course of several months, disclosed confidential information to a reporter in exchange for information pertinent to the investigation.
Fattah argues that the FBI agent's conduct violated the Sixth Amendment because the pre-indictment press caused him to lose his job, which in turn rendered him unable to retain the counsel of his choice. Fattah also argues that the agent's conduct violated his Fifth Amendment right to due process. We conclude that neither argument prevails. As the Government concedes, the agent's conduct was wrongful. We are unable, however, to conclude that Fattah is entitled to relief.
Fattah also raises a number of additional claims regarding the sufficiency of the indictment, constructive amendment of the indictment, improper joinder of counts, and the particularity of the search warrants.
We reject those arguments as well. Accordingly, we will affirm the judgment of the District Court.
On July 29, 2014, more than two years after the searches and media coverage described above, a grand jury returned an indictment charging defendant Chaka Fattah, Jr. with twenty-three counts: one count of bank fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1344; eight counts of making false statements to obtain loans, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1014; one count of making false statements to settle a loan, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1014; three counts of making false statements concerning loans insured by the Small Business Administration, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001; four counts of filing false federal income tax returns, in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7206; one count of failing to pay federal income tax, in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7203; one count of theft from a program receiving federal funds, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 666(a)(1)(A); four counts of wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343; and aiding and abetting, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2. A grand jury returned a Superseding Indictment with minor amendments on March 3, 2015.
The charges fall into three basic categories.
The first set of charges relate to Fattah's fraudulently obtaining and failing to repay lines of credit. In applying for lines of credit, Fattah represented to various banks that his company, 259 Strategies, LLC, would use the money for business purposes when in fact Fattah intended to use the money for personal expenses like gambling debts, clothing, jewelry, a BMW, and liquor. Fattah also failed to disclose his outstanding debts and misrepresented facts about his company's operational status and financials. Fattah recruited his roommate, Matthew Amato, to make similar misrepresentations to obtain additional lines of credit. The Superseding Indictment also charges Fattah with making false statements to avoid repaying some of the banks.
Second, the Superseding Indictment charged Fattah with tax evasion. Specifically, Fattah failed to report certain income from his other businesses, including income from his sham concierge service, American Royalty. For example, Fattah accepted $10,000 from an eighteen-year-old after promising that American Royalty would obtain an American Express black card for the teenager. Fattah never did so; instead, he kept the money and failed to report it as income.
And third, the Superseding Indictment charged Fattah with defrauding the Philadelphia School District (" PSD" ). Fattah's company, 259 Strategies, contracted with Delaware Valley High School (" DVHS" ), a for-profit educational provider. Fattah thereafter became DVHS's Chief Operating Officer. DVHS, in turn, signed a $2.1 million contract with the PSD to run the " Southwest" school for troubled students. Through his position at DVHS, Fattah submitted fraudulent budgets to the PSD that requested funding for nonexistent jobs and unperformed services. All told, the PSD overpaid $940,000 over a two-year period, and Fattah personally pocketed part of that sum.
Fattah declined representation from the Federal Community Defender Office for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and has proceeded throughout this litigation pro se. Before trial began, Fattah filed a motion to dismiss the indictment. Among other accusations, Fattah alleged that the Government had leaked confidential information about the investigation to the press. Fattah argued, inter alia, that the
Government's conduct violated his Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights. The District Court denied the motion, concluding that there was no evidence of a leak.
Trial commenced on October 15, 2015. On October 27, the FBI agent in charge of the investigation testified that he did in fact leak confidential information to a reporter in exchange for background information about the PSD. The agent explained that he had revealed the existence of sealed search warrants, provided the time and location of the search, discussed the content of undercover recordings, and gave specific information about Fattah's business dealings, including the amount of money he had been paid through his work.
After the agent's testimony, Fattah (through standby counsel) moved for a hearing to determine whether the Government violated grand jury secrecy or its obligations under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963). The District Court denied the motion.2
On November 5, 2015, a jury found Fattah guilty on all counts except one (Count 17, filing a false income tax return for the year 2009). On February 2, 2016, the District Court sentenced Fattah to serve sixty months' imprisonment and five years' supervised release, and to pay $1,172,157 in restitution plus a special assessment fee of $2,125. Fattah timely appealed. By Order dated January 23, 2017, the Court appointed Ellen C. Brotman as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Fattah.
We begin with Fattah's claims that the FBI agent's conduct violated Fattah's Sixth Amendment right to the counsel of his choice and violated his Fifth Amendment right to due process. We reject both arguments.
Before reaching the merits of the Fifth and Sixth Amendment issues, we must first address the issue of waiver.[4] We will not enforce waiver against either party.
" [I]t is well settled that arguments asserted for the first time on appeal are deemed to be waived and consequently are not susceptible to review in this Court absent exceptional circumstances." United States v. Rose, 538 F.3d 175, 179 (3d Cir. 2008) (quoting United States v. Lockett, 406 F.3d 207, 212 (3d Cir. 2005)). When reviewing a district court's ruling on a pretrial motion, including a motion alleging " a defect in instituting the prosecution," Fed. R. Crim. P. 12(b)(3)(A), we will not consider any unpreserved arguments absent " good cause," Fed. R. Crim. P. 12(c)(3); see
United States v. Joseph, 730 F.3d 336 (3d Cir. 2013); Rose, 538 F.3d at 182. This rule applies to criminal defendants
and to the Government alike. See, e.g., United States v. Tracey, 597 F.3d 140, 149 (3d Cir. 2010) (" [T]he Government waived this argument by failing to raise it before the District Court." ).
This case reaches us in an unusual posture. Fattah properly raised both his Fifth and Sixth Amendment claims in a pretrial motion. But at that time, the Government did not know about the leaks. It defended against Fattah's pretrial motion by arguing that the presence of reporters was insufficient evidence to justify an evidentiary hearing. The District Court agreed. But at trial, the agent's testimony confirmed Fattah's suspicion. With the assistance of...