Court Opinion

ID: 9952087
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-19 18:00:33.760615+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:38:01.286162
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-50067           Document: 116-1           Page: 1     Date Filed: 03/19/2024

           United States Court of Appeals
                for the Fifth Circuit
                                   ____________
                                                                             United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                      Fifth Circuit
                                    No. 23-50067
                                  Summary Calendar                                  FILED
                                  ____________                                March 19, 2024
                                                                               Lyle W. Cayce
United States of America,                                                           Clerk

                                                                    Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                          versus

Michael Angelo Padron,

                                            Defendant—Appellant.
                   ______________________________

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                        for the Western District of Texas
                            USDC No. 5:21-CR-124-1
                   ______________________________

Before Higginbotham, Stewart, and Southwick, Circuit
Judges.
Per Curiam: *
       Michael Angelo Padron appeals his conviction and sentence for one
count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud and six substantive counts of wire
fraud. He argues that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions
and that the statutory maximum fine imposed by the district court was
substantively unreasonable. Additionally, Padron moves to relieve his
       _____________________
       *
           This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-50067       Document: 116-1       Page: 2     Date Filed: 03/19/2024

                                 No. 23-50067

attorney and seeks appointment of new counsel. As the district court granted
this same relief, the motion is DENIED AS MOOT.
       “This court will uphold the jury’s verdict if a rational trier of fact
could conclude from the evidence that the elements of the oﬀense were
established beyond a reasonable doubt.” United States v. Vargas-Ocampo, 747
F.3d 299, 301 (5th Cir. 2014) (en banc). This court considers “the evidence
in the light most favorable to the [G]overnment with all reasonable inferences
and credibility choices made in support of the verdict.” United States v. Jones,
133 F.3d 358, 362 (5th Cir. 1998) (internal quotation marks and citation
omitted).
       “To prove conspiracy to commit wire fraud, the government must
prove that: (1) two or more persons made an agreement to commit wire fraud;
(2) the defendant knew the unlawful purpose of the agreement; and (3) the
defendant joined in the agreement willfully, i.e., with speciﬁc intent.” United
States v. Kuhrt, 788 F.3d 403, 414 (5th Cir. 2015). Although the central
feature of a conspiracy is the agreement, that agreement need not be written
or spoken but may be inferred from concert of action. United States v.
Sanders, 952 F.3d 263, 277 (5th Cir. 2020).
       The evidence amply supports a conclusion that Padron and others
established Blackhawk Ventures, LLC (Blackhawk) and obtained certiﬁcation
of Blackhawk as a service-disabled, veteran-owned small business
(SDVOSB), to participate in a government contracting program meant to
beneﬁt service-disabled veterans. Further, although two service-disabled
veterans were at relevant times the nominal owners of Blackhawk, there was
signiﬁcant evidence that they were placed in those positions by Padron for the
purpose of obtaining SDVOSB certiﬁcation, and that Padron eﬀectively made
all relevant decisions, in contravention of program requirements. This
included testimony of numerous witnesses regarding the relative roles of the

                                       2
Case: 23-50067       Document: 116-1        Page: 3    Date Filed: 03/19/2024

                                  No. 23-50067

nominal owners and Padron in Blackhawk’s business, and evidence that
Blackhawk was intertwined with and controlled through other companies
owned by Padron. Although Padron relies on evidence to the contrary, it is
the sole province of the jury to weigh conﬂicting evidence and assess witness
credibility. United States v. Monroe, 178 F.3d 304, 307 (5th Cir. 1999).
       With respect to the wire fraud counts, the Government was required
to prove that “(1) a scheme to defraud exists, (2) the defendant used wire
communications in interstate or foreign commerce to further that scheme,
and (3) the defendant had speciﬁc intent to defraud.” Sanders, 952 F.3d at
277 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Padron does not
challenge the first and third elements. Rather, he argues that the
Government failed to prove that he used wire communications to further the
scheme.

       A defendant is directly liable for the use of interstate wires if he could
have reasonably foreseen the use of wire communications in furtherance of
the scheme to defraud. United States v. Richards, 204 F.3d 177, 207 (5th Cir.
2007). The defendant need not have personally made the communication
nor order that it be made; rather, the issue is whether the use of wire
communications was foreseeable. Id.

        The wire fraud counts were premised on invoices submitted by
Blackhawk with respect to a parking garage contract awarded to Blackhawk
by the Department of Veterans Aﬀairs. As discussed above, the evidence
supports a conclusion that Padron maintained control over Blackhawk’s
activities since its formation. Further, Blackhawk’s standard billing practices
involved submitting electronic invoices and receiving payments via electronic
fund transfers. Although the evidence did not show that Padron himself
submitted the invoices or ordered they be submitted, given all the evidence,
the jury could have inferred it was reasonably foreseeable that wire
communications would be used in furtherance of the scheme to defraud. See

                                       3
Case: 23-50067        Document: 116-1       Page: 4     Date Filed: 03/19/2024

                                  No. 23-50067

Richards, 204 F.3d at 207. Accordingly, we need not reach the alternate theory
of liability under Pinkerton v. United States, 328 U.S. 640, 647-48 (1946).

       Finally, Padron challenges the reasonableness of the above-guidelines
ﬁne imposed by the district court. Padron’s procedural challenge to the
calculation of the original guidelines range and, consequently the original ﬁne
range, did not preserve the particular substantive reasonableness challenge
he raises here. See United States v. Napper, 978 F.3d 118, 124 (5th Cir. 2020);
United States v. Neal, 578 F.3d 270, 272 (5th Cir. 2009). Consequently, our
review is for plain error. See Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009).
Padron must identify (1) a forfeited error (2) that is clear and obvious, and
(3) that aﬀects his substantial rights. See Puckett, 556 U.S. at 135. If he
satisﬁes the ﬁrst three requirements, this court may, in its discretion, remedy
the error if the error “seriously aﬀect[s] the fairness, integrity or public
reputation of judicial proceedings.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation
omitted).

       In reviewing a non-guidelines sentence for substantive reasonableness,
this court considers “the totality of the circumstances, including the extent
of any variance from the Guidelines range.” United States v. Brantley, 537
F.3d 347, 349 (5th Cir. 2008) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
A non-guidelines sentence is unreasonable if it: “(1) does not account for a
factor that should have received signiﬁcant weight, (2) gives signiﬁcant
weight to an irrelevant or improper factor, or (3) represents a clear error of
judgment in balancing the sentencing factors.” See United States v. Diehl, 775
F.3d 714, 723 (5th Cir. 2015).
       Contrary to Padron’s arguments, the record reﬂects that the district
court considered the guidelines range as well as the § 3553(a) factors when
imposing the ﬁne. The district court speciﬁcally identiﬁed some of the
§ 3553(a) factors underlying its decision, including the seriousness of the
oﬀense and the need for adequate deterrence. Although Padron contends the

                                        4
Case: 23-50067        Document: 116-1       Page: 5     Date Filed: 03/19/2024

                                  No. 23-50067

court failed to give weight to other factors, it was not required to address every
factor. See Diehl, 775 F.3d at 723.
        Given the signiﬁcant deference that is due to a district court’s
consideration of the § 3553(a) factors and the district court’s reasons for its
sentencing decision, see Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 50-53 (2007),
Padron has not demonstrated any clear or obvious error with respect to the
district court’s determination of the ﬁne.
       Accordingly, the judgment is AFFIRMED.

                                        5