Opinion ID: 166511
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: motion to strike testimony

Text: Mr. Pflum’s second issue on appeal is whether the district court erred in refusing to strike the testimony of two government witnesses. On crossexamination IRS Special Agent Henry Herron testified that the rate of income tax withholding was 28%, a figure that he said was in the federal Sentencing Guidelines, but could be found in the United States Code as well. Agent Abbe Stewart later testified on cross-examination that wage withholding is governed by IRS publication Circular E. On redirect she testified that the 28% figure could be found in 26 C.F.R. § 31.3402(g)(1). After the government rested, Mr. Pflum moved to strike the testimony. His counsel argued that the regulation cited by Agent Stewart related only to supplemental wages and did not mention a 28% -7- figure. He also argued that Circular E had no legal effect because it was not published in the regulations. The district court denied the motion, but gave Mr. Pflum leave to raise it again. The motion was renewed at the close of evidence and denied again without comment by the court. Before addressing Mr. Pflum’s argument, we make two observations regarding the procedural context of the issue. First, although Mr. Pflum originally argued that the challenged testimony affected both his conviction and sentence, he now concedes that the testimony affected only his sentence calculation. The jury did not need to find a specific amount of tax loss to convict Mr. Pflum on any of the counts. The amount of tax loss was submitted to the jury solely to prevent any potential sentencing problems that might arise in light of Blakely. Second, Mr. Pflum has not objected to the mandatory application of the Sentencing Guidelines to this case. Had he done so, we would be confronted with nonconstitutional Booker error because the sentence was calculated solely on facts found by the jury. See United States v. Gonzalez-Huerta, 403 F.3d 727, 731-32 (10th Cir. 2005). But because Mr. Pflum has not raised this issue, we need not address it. See United States v. Sandia, 188 F.3d 1215, 1218 n.2 (10th Cir. 1999). For purposes of this case we will treat the guidelines in a pre-Booker fashion. -8- “We review the district court’s admission of evidence for an abuse of discretion, not disturbing the court’s decision unless we have a definite and firm conviction that the trial court made a clear error of judgment or exceeded the bounds of permissible choice in the circumstances.” Richardson v. Mo. Pac. R.R. Co., 186 F.3d 1273, 1276 (10th Cir. 1999) (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted). We may affirm on any ground supported by the record. United States v. Sandoval, 29 F.3d 537, 542 n.6 (10th Cir. 1994). We affirm because Mr. Pflum’s objection to the challenged testimony was not timely. See generally 1 Jack B. Weinstein & Margaret A. Berger, Weinstein’s Federal Evidence, § 103.11 (Joseph M. McLaughlin, ed., Matthew Bender 2d ed. 1997) (“An objection to the admission of evidence must be ‘timely’ or else any error in admission may not be asserted on appeal. An objection is ‘timely’ if it is made as soon as the opponent knows, or should know, that the objection is applicable.” (footnotes omitted)). The basis for the objection—that the 28% figure used to calculate the tax loss is not in the United States Code or the regulations—was known to Mr. Pflum, or should have been known, long before the objection was made. Specifically, even before Agent Herron took the stand Mr. Pflum had stipulated to the admission of Government Exhibits 6 and 7, which consisted of spreadsheets showing the names of Mr. Pflum’s employees, the wages they were paid, and the amount of taxes that should have been withheld. -9- The exhibits relied on the 28% figure in calculating the required withholding. The cross-examination of Agent Herron also demonstrates that Mr. Pflum’s counsel was aware of the 28% figure before Agent Herron took the stand. Indeed, Mr. Pflum’s counsel questioned Agent Herron extensively about the 28% figure, and even suggested that the figure was from the Sentencing Guidelines, and not the Tax Code. At one point Mr. Pflum’s counsel asked Agent Herron: “Is it not true that that 28 percent that you are using is not something that’s dictated or required by the federal income tax laws, the 28 percent figure comes from another set of laws. Is that correct?” Aplee. Supp. App. at 161. The cross-examination of Agent Stewart also reveals that Mr. Pflum was aware of the basis for his objection long before the government rested its case. Agent Stewart did not testify on direct examination about the tax loss or the 28% figure. Her testimony was limited to describing a W-4 form and the difference between employees and independent contractors. On cross-examination Mr. Pflum’s counsel questioned Agent Stewart about the withholding rate for federal income taxes and how that rate would be calculated. Agent Stewart responded: “You would have to look at the payroll tax tables that the Internal Revenue Service puts out each year . . . .” Id. at 194. Q. Now, this table, is that circular E?
-10- Q. Okay. Good enough. That’s what I want. So you’re familiar with the fact that under Section 3402 of—just the section itself says withholding shall be done according to some table, right? A. That’s one of the ways, yes. .... Q. And the typical way to withhold would be you’d look at the regulations and it would say consult circular E, correct? A. Give or take, yeah. Q. And so you’d have to dig out circular E . . . to determine how much is to be withheld? A. That’s correct. .... Q. And the only way you could determine that would be by looking at circular E? A. That’s correct. Id. at 194-195. Under Fed. R. Evid. 103 evidentiary objections generally must be made at the time the evidence is offered. See Sorensen v. City of Aurora, 984 F.2d 349, 355 (10th Cir. 1993); see also Vallejos v. C.E. Glass Co., 583 F.2d 507, 511 (10th Cir. 1978) (motion to exclude raised as part of motion for directed verdict was not timely; “the proper time to object to the admission of evidence . . . was at the time it was offered”). In this case Mr. Pflum did not object until after four additional witnesses had been called and the government had rested its case. United States v. Gibbs, 739 F.2d 838, 849 (3d Cir. 1984) (en banc) (objection untimely when made “not when the evidence was offered, but during a motion to strike made after the government had rested”); United States v. Kanovsky, 618 F.2d 229, 231 -11- (2d Cir. 1980) (“[T]he record reveals that appellant’s objection below was not timely since it was not made until after the witness was excused and the jury dismissed from the courtroom.”). The belated objection deprived the government of the opportunity to cure any potential defects in the testimony. Because the objection was untimely, it was properly overruled. We AFFIRM Mr. Pflum’s conviction and sentence. ENTERED FOR THE COURT Harris L Hartz