Opinion ID: 68728
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Check Was Admissible.

Text: Rogozinski argues that the district court violated a rule of evidence by admitting what Rogozinski contends was a “copy so poor the jury laughed at it[,]” but we disagree. “A duplicate [of a document] is admissible to the same extent as an original unless (1) a genuine question is raised as to the authenticity of the original or (2) in the circumstances it would be unfair to admit the duplicate in lieu of the original.” Fed. R. Evid. 1003. Although the copy of the check is blurred slightly, it is not of such poor quality that it was unfair to admit into evidence. The district court did not commit any error, much less plain error, by admitting the check into evidence. 12 C. The District Court Correctly Considered The Amount of the Check at Sentencing. Rogozinski argues that the district court was estopped from considering the face value of the check at sentencing, but we disagree. A district court may invoke judicial estoppel “to prevent a party from asserting a claim in a legal proceeding that is inconsistent with a claim taken by that party in a previous proceeding.” Stephens v. Tolbert, 471 F.3d 1173, 1177 (11th Cir. 2006). There was no need to disregard the value of the check in the absence of evidence that the government assumed inconsistent positions about the value of the check or the crimes Rogozinski committed when he deposited the check. The district court did not clearly err by considering the amount of the check at sentencing. Rogozinski was responsible for the amount of the check. A defendant can be held accountable for the loss he intended, even if the intended loss is not “realistically possible.” United States v. Wai-Keung, 115 F.3d 874, 877 (11th Cir. 1997). Rogozinski deposited the check at the Bank of America, assured the bank employee that the check was valid, and returned on several occasions to withdraw money. D. Rogozinski’s Sentence is Reasonable. Rogozinski argues for the first time on appeal that his sentence was unreasonable because the district court took into account that he had violated the 13 tax code, an offense of which he was not indicted or convicted, but his argument is not supported by the record. Although the district court expressed its belief during sentencing that Rogozinski was “part of the tax protester anarchist movement,” the court adopted the findings of the presentence investigation report, which calculated the advisory guideline range based on Rogozinski’s convictions for conspiracy, bank fraud, and passing a fictitious instrument. The district court stated it had considered the sentencing range as advisory, and had concluded that a sentence within the guidelines was necessary to punish Rogozinski, deter similar future crimes by Rogozinski and others, and protect the public. Rogozinski’s sentence is reasonable.