Opinion ID: 3015470
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Pietrak

Text: Pietrak argues that the fraudulent “invoices” he signed were actually delivery slips that were different from invoices signed by the defendants. Emphasizing this difference, he asserts that he was unaware he was signing false invoices because the delivery slips he signed did not contain part and pricing information, and therefore he did not know he was signing a fraudulent document. However, the testimony of Thomas Gallagher established (for purposes of our review of sufficiency) that the signature on a delivery slip—as much 4 LaGrossa’s contention that the Government failed to prove that at least $5,000 was obtained by fraud during the 12-month period charged in the indictment, as required by 18 U.S.C. § 666(a)(1)(A)(i), is unpersuasive, as Government Exhibit 193a shows that the amount of the fraud exceeded $11,000 during the relevant 12-month period. Though LaGrossa argues that the Government did not establish that a violation occurred within the relevant period, Government Exhibit 193a also shows that LaGrossa approved a number of fraudulent invoices dated after January 24, 1997. 10 as signature on an invoice—is a representation that the City had received what they ordered. Additionally, some delivery slips included part and pricing information. Pietrak is re-hashing the argument he made to the jury and, given our standard of review, that argument must fail. Thus we find the evidence sufficient for a reasonable jury to find Pietrak guilty.5