Opinion ID: 3014083
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Rennert’s Sentence and the

Text: adjust the specific offense level by taking Beginning Date of the Fraud into account all conduct relevant to the Rennert also argues that the District offense. U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3(a). This Court should have calculated the fraud loss includes “all reasonably foreseeable acts for the period after December 1990 and omissions of others in furtherance of because the Department of Insurance [a] jointly undertaken criminal activity.” Director stated that had it known of the U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3(a)(1)(B). true value of Appellants’ stocks in Miller asserts that United States v. December 1990, it would have halted the Collado, 975 F.2d 985 (3d Cir. 1992), flow of premiums. Rennert did not assert requires that we remand this case in light this alternative loss calculation during the of the District Court’s lack of findings as District Court’s sentencing hearing and, to the precise scope and timing of his thus, has waived the argument. See United agreement to join the conspiracy. 5 In States v. Bethancourt, 65 F.3d 1074, 1082 (3d Cir. 1995). B. Miller’s Claim Regarding the Scope of 5 Miller also cites United States v. His Involvement Studley, 47 F.3d 569 (2d Cir. 1995). 1. Relevant Conduct However, Studley is not a binding precedent on this court and we have made 10 Collado, we stated that the district court of the brothers’ involvement in the must consider whether the loss resulting conspiracy or in each other’s transactions, from the actions of co-conspirators was 1) but instead only adopted the findings of “in furtherance of the . . . jointly- the presentence report in attributing to undertaken . . . activity,” 2) within “the each of them the drug quantity from the scope of the defendant’s agreements,” and conspiracy. Although we required 3) “reasonably foreseeable in connection individualized inquiry, we did not impose with the criminal activity the defendant an immutable requirement that the district agreed to undertake.” 975 F.3d at 995 court hold extensive hearings to make (citing U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3, application note explicit, particularized findings as to the 1); see also United States v. Duliga, 204 exact date on which each defendant F.3d 97, 100 (3d Cir. 2000). We held that committed to the conspiracy or the precise the relevant conduct provision depends contours of each conspirator’s agreement. upon each defendant’s role in the We instead employed a more flexible conspiracy and stated that courts must approach. We remanded the case to the conduct “a searching and individualized district court to determine when the inquiry into the circumstances surrounding defendants had joined the larger each defendant’s involvement in the conspiracy because the district court had conspiracy” in order to “ensure that the made no finding on the issue and the defendant’s sentence accurately reflects record was not clear on this issue. his or her role” in the conspiracy. Collado, Critically, however, we also 975 F.3d at 995. We added that district affirmed the district court’s attribution to courts also should consider other factors, one brother the amounts the other brother such as whether the defendant profited or supplied to the conspiracy. We affirmed assisted others in the conspiracy. Id. at this finding based on our review of the 991-94. We further clarified that a record, despite the district court’s lack of conspiracy conviction does not obviate the explicit findings on this issue. Because the need for analysis under the relevant record was clear on its face, the district conduct provision. Id. at 993, 997. court’s lack of particularized findings was Collado dealt with the liability of not dispositive. We instead concluded that two brothers involved in a larger drug the district court’s accomplice attribution conspiracy. The district court had not conclusion between the brothers was made any factual findings as to the scope supported by the record evidence of their awareness of and assistance to each other in drug transactions. See id. at 997. clear that the resolution of such issues is More recently, in Duliga, we governed by this Court’s decision in reaffirmed the proposition that even absent Collado. United States v. Duliga, 204 F.3d explicit findings on the precise scope of a 97, 101 n.1 (3d Cir. 2000). Accordingly, defendant’s involvement, a district court’s our analysis focuses on Collado. 11 decision may be affirmed if it is adequately see no reason to remand the case only to supported by the trial court record. 204 have the district court reach the same F.3d at 101 n.2. Although the district sentencing decision.” 204 F.3d at 101 n.2. court in that case “did not necessarily 2. Evidentiary Issues undertake a searching and individualized inquiry before attributing the entire Miller also contends that the amount of [fraud] loss . . . to Duliga,” we District Court abused its discretion by affirmed without remanding because we denying his request to submit additional were convinced that the attribution of the evidence that allegedly would have had a fraud loss was “firmly supported by the direct bearing on the scope and timing of record.” Id. his involvement in the conspiracy and his inability to foresee the total fraud loss Here, the record evidence suffices caused by the conspiracy. In particular, to support the conclusion that Miller had Miller attempted to submit evidence to agreed to the conspiracy by at least August dispute 1) his presence at the first meeting 1990 and should be held liable for the full between Rennert and Teale in August amount of loss caused by the conspiracy. 1990 (the time at which the Government In contrast to Collado’s under-developed suggested that Miller joined th e record, the record in this case included conspiracy); 2) Forum Rothmore’s Miller’s opinion letters on fraudulent stock designation of payments to Miller as legal transactions, his demand letters to protect fees or leasing fees in its financial records; artificially inflated stock quotes, and his and 3) the timing of Miller’s first letters advising the removal of restrictive discussion with the owners of the gold stock certificate legends so that non- mine corporation (with which Ecotech marketable shares would appear to be merged) about receiving Ecotech stock in tradeable. Miller played a critical role, order to bolster Ecotech’s financial enabling the conspiracy to function and statements. Because the District Court providing it an imprimatur of legitimacy. found that the issue of foreseeability was The record evidence of Miller’s extensive subsumed in the jury verdict, it stated that involvement in the conspiracy supports the it would not permit Miller to re-try an District Court’s application of the relevant issue that the jury had already determined. conduct provision.6 As with Duliga, “we We consider each piece of Miller’s evidence below. 6 Because we rely on the record Even assuming Miller was not evidence of Miller’s agreement and present at Rennert and Teale’s August complicity, we need not reach Miller’s 1990 meeting, several of Miller’s other claim that the District Court may have actions evidence his involvement in the improperly conflated the jury’s conspiracy conspiracy by August 1990. For example, verdict with a finding of full liability under in June 1990, two months before the the relevant conduct provision. 12 Rennert-Teale meeting, Miller provided attempt to submit evidence regarding his Rennert with an opinion letter to support presence at the Rennert-Teale meeting. Forum Rothmore’s practice of leasing Miller also attempted to submit worthless assets. On July 13, 1990, Miller evidence from his personal records and authored an opinion letter recommending journals that he contended showed that he the re-issue of the restricted Ecotech stock was not paid to provide stock to Forum held by Jensen, Rennert, and Miller Rothmore with knowledge of his co- without a restrictive legend. This made it defendants’ fraudulent activities, but only appear that Forum Rothmore could received legal fees and a loan. Miller provide Teale with millions of marketable emphasizes that Forum Rothmore’s faulty shares. In an August 28, 1990 letter, one a c c o u n t in g sys t e m i m p r o p e r l y week after the Rennert-Teale meeting, denominated his payments as stock Miller wrote to Teale expressing his provider fees, rather than traditional interest and commitment to what he payments for legal fees. termed the “credit enhancement program” that forms the basis of the fraud charges As the Government points out, the against the defendants, along with a $25 designation of F orum Rothmore’s million offer of stocks from Ecotech and payments as “leasing fees” or “legal fees” other corporations. Supp. App. at 638-47. is inconsequential because the payment Regardless of whether he was present at was made in exchange for M iller’s the Rennert-Teale meeting, the remainder services in advancing a fraudulent scheme. of Miller’s actions strongly support the Because Miller does not contest the District Court’s conclusion that he had District Court’s finding that he used his joined the conspiracy by or before August legal skills in furtherance of the fraud, the 1990. fact of payment for fraudulent services is the critical point while the form of his Miller responds that he undertook payment is irrelevant. Moreover, as we the aforementioned actions “in good noted in Miller, Miller’s services could not faith.” Miller Reply Br. at 8-9. Yet, the “be categorized as simple legal advice.” c u m u l a t iv e e f f e c t o f M i l l e r ’s Miller, slip op. at 7. aforementioned actions (the June opinion letter, the July letter recommending re- Although Miller responds that he issue of stock, and the August letter to was acting in good faith when he rendered Teale) suggests that Miller was too central the legal services for which he received to the operation to believe naïvely that he remuneration and was not aware that his and his associates were all within the legal services were being misused for a bounds of the law. Based on the record criminal conspiracy, the record does not evidence, Miller’s explanation is not support his contention. We also note that credible and the District Court did not Miller’s argument that Forum Rothmore abuse its discretion in rejecting Miller’s only paid him for good-faith legal services, 13 rather than fraudulent stock-leasing permitted to submit his proffered evidence, activities, goes to whether or not he acted Miller’s evidence would not have been in furtherance of the conspiracy. The sufficient to undermine the basis in the jury’s verdict shows that it decided that record for imposing accomplice liability. issue adversely to Miller. Despite Miller’s We hold the District Court did not abuse insistence that his new evidence only its discretion in denying Miller’s proffer of pertained to the timing or scope of his the evidence. commitment, Miller also attempted to