Opinion ID: 610901
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Charles Lachterman

Text: 27 Appellant Charles Lachterman is a professional thief who, since 1987, allegedly supplied the enterprise with stolen property to fence. On June 27, 1989, Lachterman was caught stealing jewelry from a Manhattan apartment. Following the arrest, Paul Tinnirello posted bail and Lachterman was released. Lachterman jumped bail but continued his close association with members of the group, with whom he continued to plan jewel thefts. There was evidence that, in November and December of 1989, Lachterman conspired with Lawrence Tinnirello to defraud a merchant for nine, ten grand by duping the merchant with a fake ruby. The two also plotted a residential theft in Brooklyn, and Tinnirello proposed that Lachterman join the Telco robbery conspiracy. 28 Lachterman's collaboration with the group was long-lasting and based on mutual profit from stolen jewelry. Lachterman spent so much time at the group's jewelry booth that Friedman and Lachterman both told others that Lachterman worked there. In addition, Lachterman reported to Lawrence Tinnirello before going out to steal, telling him when he would bring the proceeds to 47th Street. Government wire-taps reveal that when Lawrence Tinnirello was not actively fencing stolen jewelry, he told Lachterman that he hoped to return to 47th Street soon and work with you just like I was working with you before. 29 Lachterman was eventually arrested for robbery in 1990 after he was caught stealing $18,000 worth of jewelry. When arrested, Lachterman was carrying lock picks, mace, the phone numbers of Friedman, the Tinnirellos, and Joseph DiSomma, and a piece of paper which the government argues reflects his bail-debt to Paul Tinnirello. The paper indicated that the debt had been reduced from $3500 to $3400. 30 In this case, Lachterman was charged with participation in a racketeering conspiracy in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d), a substantive RICO violation pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c), participation in the Telco conspiracy in violation of the Hobbs Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1951, and possession of a gun in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and (3). Convicted only of the RICO offenses, he was sentenced to 135 months imprisonment, three years supervised release, and restitution in the amount of $10,000. 31 Lachterman challenges both convictions on the grounds that his two charged thefts were insufficiently related to the Friedman/Tinnirello criminal enterprise. He also attacks his sentence on the grounds that he should have been awarded reductions for accepting responsibility and playing only a minor role in the enterprise. We disagree. 32 Lachterman argues that his RICO convictions must be set aside because there is no evidence that his crimes were part of or tied to the core Friedman/Tinnirello enterprise. Rather, he portrays himself as a solo burglar with little connection to the organized ring. We disagree. 33 It is clear that Lachterman was systematically and actively associated with the enterprise. In November 1989, Friedman and Tinnirello discussed Lachterman's relative productivity over the previous two years, clearly referring to his role as a professional jewel thief and his productivity in their fencing operation. Moreover, government phone-taps reveal that Lachterman and Tinnirello planned a number of crimes, discussed Lachterman's ongoing efforts to steal jewels and disclosed that Lachterman reported to Tinnirello before going out on jobs. The same wiretaps reveal that Lachterman even kept Tinnirello apprised of the activities of other criminals who might infringe on the group's territory. 34 Given this record of association and collaboration, a reasonable jury could draw the following inferences. As to Lachterman's first predicate act, the 1989 burglary, the jury could conclude that Paul Tinnirello's willingness to pay Lachterman's bail was an explicit acknowledgement that Lachterman was working for the Friedman/Tinnirello enterprise at the time. It is not at all unreasonable to infer such a connection when a major fence posts (and forfeits) bail for a professional jewel thief. 35 The jury was similarly entitled to infer that Lachterman's second predicate act, the 1990 robbery, was connected with and related to the enterprise. Lachterman's notes at the time of his arrest entitled the jury to conclude that Lachterman was then indebted to Paul Tinnirello for the bail money. Lachterman's statements indicated that his only job was stealing jewels and therefore such a theft was the only means by which he could repay the debt. Moreover, the government presented evidence that, on other occasions, Lachterman planned jewel thefts in order to pay off debts to the enterprise's members. When Tinnirello recruited Lachterman for the Telco robbery, Lachterman was current only on his interest payments for his bail-debt to Paul Tinnirello. Tinnirello offered to let Lachterman participate because he knew Lachterman need[ed] the money. Lachterman agreed that they would work somethin' out because he hadn't been able to steal much lately, had borrowed money from DiSomma, and needed to do something to get money. In short, the jury heard evidence that Lachterman had earlier agreed to participate in a jewel theft in order to repay members of the organization. It was therefore permissible for the jury to infer that Lachterman similarly planned the 1990 robbery in order to fence the jewels through the organization and pay off his debt. In short, the evidence was more than enough to allow the jury to conclude that both Friedman and Lachterman told the truth when they represented that Lachterman worked for the group. 36 Of course, these are not the only inferences that might be drawn from these events. However, we must draw all inferences in favor of the government, Stanley, 928 F.2d at 576, and need not exclude every possible hypothesis of innocence. United States v. Soto, 716 F.2d 989, 993 (2d Cir.1983). Because the evidence would allow a rational juror to find Lachterman guilty, we will not disturb the verdict on appeal. Lachterman is simply unable to bear the very heavy burden required for a successful reversal. See United States v. Maldonado-Rivera, 922 F.2d 934, 978 (2d Cir.1990), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 111 S.Ct. 2811, 115 L.Ed.2d 984 (1991). 37 Lachterman also challenges his sentence, arguing that he is entitled to a reduction for acceptance of responsibility because he plead guilty to a state charge based on his 1989 arrest for burglary. We disagree. 38 First, Judge Cedarbaum was unpersuaded that Lachterman merited a reduction even if the charge were simply the 1989 burglary, let alone the RICO charges, because he had refused to come forward and, by his actions, show clear acceptance of responsibility. Judge Cedarbaum was in a unique position to evaluate [Lachterman's] acceptance of responsibility, U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1 Application Note 5, and found that Lachterman failed to exhibit an affirmative acceptance of responsibility. Her finding is entitled to deference on review and will not be overturned because it is not clearly erroneous. Id. 39 Finally, Lachterman argues, and the government concedes, that when the district judge considered U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2(b), she used two different standards interchangeably, confusing minor with minimal participation. Lachterman asks that we remand for clarification of this issue. We agree. 40 Section 3B1.2(b) of the Sentencing Guidelines awards a two-level reduction to a minor participant, whom the Application Notes define as any participant who is less culpable than most other participants, but whose role could not be described as minimal. Minimal participants, as defined for Section 3B1.2(a), are those who are plainly among the least culpable. U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2(a) Application Note 1. Thus, in the nomenclature of this section, minor participants fall somewhere between minimal participants and ordinary ones. 41 Nevertheless, the court's discussion conflated the categories minimal and minor, blurring the distinction between Section 3B1.2(a) and (b). In ruling that Lachterman was not entitled to a minor role adjustment, the court stated that not everybody is either a leader or a minimal participant. That is, there are foot soldiers. Most people are neither minimal nor major participants.... There has to be something specific that distinguishes either a minimal or a major player. The court later stated that it did not 42 view Mr. Lachterman as playing a minimal role in the sense that I understand minor role or minimal role under the guidelines.... Unless the conduct is truly peripheral to the activity of the group, ... I don't think minimal role is appropriate. Perhaps you are trying to persuade me, for example, that because Mr. Lachterman executed robberies on his own, that is, by himself, that makes him minimal. But in terms of group activity, I don't think that was minimal conduct. 43 The government argues that, after this initial confusion, the judge nevertheless applied the correct standard. This may be true, but we cannot be certain that this was an inadvertent misstatement that did not affect the sentence. See United States v. Lopez, 937 F.2d 716, 728 (2d Cir.1991). We therefore vacate Lachterman's sentence for a determination of whether he is entitled to a reduction for a minor role. 44 Affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded.