United States v. Prange, 1st Cir. (2014)

7/26/2019 United States v. Prange, 1st Cir. (2014)

1/41

United States Court of AppealsFor the First Circuit

Nos. 13- 2262 & 13- 2328

UNI TED STATES OF AMERI CA,

Appel l ee,

v.

J AMES PRANGE and J OHN C. J ORDAN,

Def endant s, Appel l ant s.

APPEALS FROM THE UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURTFOR THE DI STRI CT OF MASSACHUSETTS

[ Hon. Nat hani el Gor t on, U. S. Di st r i ct J udge]

Bef or eKayat t a, Bal dock, * and Sel ya,

Ci r cui t J udges.

St even N. Ful l er , wi t h whom Al l en- Ful l er , P. A. was on br i ef ,f or appel l ant J ames Pr ange.

I nga L. Par sons f or appel l ant J ohn C. J or dan.

Davi d M. Li eberman, At t orney, Uni t ed St ates Depart ment ofJ ust i ce, wi t h whomCar men M. Or t i z, Uni t ed Stat es At t or ney, StephenE. Frank, Assi st ant Uni t ed St at es At t or ney, Sar ah E. Wal t er s,Assi st ant Uni t ed St at es At t or ney, Lesl i e R. Cal dwel l , Assi st antAt t or ney Gener al , and Davi d M. Bi t kower , Deput y Ass i st ant At t or neyGener al , wer e on br i ef , f or appel l ee.

November 5, 2014

*Of t he Tent h Ci r cui t , si t t i ng by desi gnat i on.


2/41

Baldock, Circuit Judge. A j ur y convi ct ed Co- Def endant s

J ames Pr ange and J ohn J or dan of mul t i pl e f r aud- r el at ed count s based

on t hei r par t i ci pat i on i n an FBI secur i t i es f r aud st i ng. The

di st r i ct cour t sent enced each def endant t o 30 mont hs i n pr i son.

Def endant s consol i dat ed appeal s r ai se mul t i pl e chal l enges t o thei r

convi ct i ons and sent ences. Exer ci si ng j ur i sdi ct i on under 28 U. S. C.

1291 and 18 U. S. C. 3742, we af f i r m Def endant s convi ct i ons but

r emand f or r esent enci ng because t he di st r i ct cour t pr ocedur al l y

er r ed when f or mul at i ng thei r gui del i ne sent enci ng ranges.

I. Introduction

Penny st ocks ar e st ocks i ssued by smal l compani es t hat

t r ade at l ess t han $5 per shar e. These st ocks, gener al l y speaki ng,

ar e t hi nl y t r aded and not l i st ed on or gani zed secur i t i es exchanges.

As a r esul t , t hei r pr i ces ar e of t en vol at i l e and subj ect t o

mani pul at i on.

To i nvest i gat e f r aud i n t he penny st ock mar ket , t he FBI

l aunched Oper at i on Penny Pi ncher . Thi s st i ng oper at i on posed an

FBI agent as a corr upt hedge f und manager named J ohn Kel l y f r om

a f i cti t i ous f und cal l ed Seaf i n Capi t al . I n t hi s rol e, t he agent

pr oposed a par t i cul ar i nvest ment deal t o t he execut i ves of

compani es wi t h l ow mar ket capi t al i zat i on. The agent of f er ed t o use

up t o f i ve mi l l i on dol l ar s of hi s cl i ent s money t o over pay f or

r est r i ct ed shar es of t he execut i ves compani es i n r et ur n f or a

-2-


3/41

f i f t y per cent ki ckback di sgui sed as a consul t i ng f ee t o one of t he

agent s nomi nee compani es. 1

The FBI cr eated a New York address, websi t e, and busi ness

car ds, and r ent ed a Massachuset t s of f i ce f or Seaf i n Capi t al . I t

al so used f or mer st ock br oker E. H. as a cooper at i ng wi t ness wi l l i ng

t o speak t o execut i ves i nt er est ed i n the ki ckback ar r angement .

E. H. had pr evi ousl y been convi ct ed of wi r e f r aud t hr ough t hi s same

operat i on and was seeki ng a l eni ent sent ence.

A. Defendant Prange

Def endant Pr ange i s a sel f - descr i bed f i nanci al

consul t ant . A mut ual acquai nt ance i nt r oduced E. H. and Prange over

t he phone i n ear l y 2011. I n J une 2011, Pr ange cal l ed E. H. aski ng

f or det ai l s about t he ki ckback pr ogr am. E. H. expl ai ned t he pr ogr am

as a pr ogr am of l ast r esor t wher e f i f t y per cent woul d go r i ght

back t o t he agent - manager and basi cal l y i t s a ki ckback t o hi m.

E. H. al so emphasi zed t hat t he execut i ves had t o f ul l y under st and

t he pr ogr am and t hat t hose who were uncomf or t abl e coul d j ust wal k

away. When Pr ange asked whet her t he manager had a l i t t l e one

page t erm sheet document i ng t he ki ckback arr angement , E. H.

r esponded no, no . . . he woul d never put anythi ng i n wr i t i ng.

Pr ange t hen r epl i ed Exact l y. Ri ght .

1 Rest r i ct ed shar es gener al l y r ef er t o unr egi st er ed andnon- t r ansf er abl e shar es of owner shi p i n a cor por at i on. Theyt ypi cal l y car r y l ess val ue because t he owner s r i ght t o sel l ort r ansf er t he st ock i s l i mi t ed.

-3-


4/41

Pr ange r ecommended a number of execut i ves as par t i ci pants

i n t hi s scheme and l at er par t i ci pat ed i n conf er ence cal l s wher e

E. H. expl ai ned t o t hese execut i ves t hat t he hedge f und di d not know

about t he ki ckback because t he manager s l i p[ ped] t hi s money i n

wi t h hi s l egi t i mat e busi ness deal s. He al so expl ai ned t hat t he

manager used seven or ei ght di f f erent nomi nee names t o r ecei ve

t he consul t i ng f ee even t hough t here was no consul t i ng work bei ng

done f or t he company. Wi t h Prange on t he cal l , E. H. t ol d one of

t hese execut i ves t hat t he ar r angement was i nappr opr i at e . . .

def i ni t el y i nappr opr i at e . . . i n my mi nd i l l egal .

Prange met t he undercover agent i n Massachuset t s on J ul y

22, 2011. The agent expl ai ned t hat hi s f und s t ypi cal i nvest ment s

i nvol ved a gr eat deal of due di l i gence. But al ongsi de t hese

l egi t i mat e deal s, t he agent sai d he i nvest ed i n l ongshot

corporat i ons i n a way t hat made i t l ook l i ke he had done due

di l i gence when, i nst ead, he woul d si mpl y paper t he f i l e i n or der

t o get i t t hr ough, and have the hedge f und, make the capi t al

i nvest ment . The cat ch? He t ook a f i f t y per cent ki ckback, r i ght

of f t he t op. The agent t hen of f er ed Pr ange a choi ce: i f at t he

end of t oday . . . t her e s somet hi ng about me you don t l i ke, t hen,

we deci de t o par t ways. But i f Pr ange deci ded t o par t i ci pat e he

woul d r ecei ve t en per cent of each ki ckback, so i f . . . we do f i ve

mi l l i on, I get t wo and a hal f , I can gi ve you t en per cent .

-4-


5/41

The agent t hen expl ai ned l ogi st i cs . He woul d f und t he

compani es i n t r anches . . . j ust t o make sur e al l t he mechani cs

. . . wor k out . Each t r anche woul d over pay f or r est r i ct ed

shar es of t he company s st ock. As f or t he ki ckback, t he agent

expl ai ned, i t s me, personal l y, and t hr ough my nomi nee company,

t hat get s t he money . . . so t he f und doesn t know, t hey don t need

t o know. To mask the payment , t he agent woul d execut e a

consul t i ng agr eement wi t h one of hi s nomi nee compani es, but he

made cl ear t hat [ t he] consul t i ng agr eement . . . i s i n paper onl y,

t her e s no consul t i ng. The agent t hen t ol d Pr ange t he bal l i s i n

your cour t . . . i f you wanna cont i nue t hese meet i ngs. Pr ange

r esponded, [ a] bsol ut el y . . . i t s excel l ent . Pr ange t hen sat

t hr ough two meet i ngs where t he agent r epeat ed t he ki ckback pi t ch t o

t wo of t he execut i ves Pr ange had r ecommended f or part i ci pat i on i n

t he scheme.

B. Defendant Jordan

Several weeks l ater , Def endant Prange suggest ed t he

under cover agent i nvest i n Vi da Li f e I nt er nat i onal . On August 22,

2011, t he agent met wi t h Pr ange and Def endant J or dan- - Vi da Li f e s

pr esi dent , CEO, and CFO. The agent had a t wo- hour , f ace- t o- f ace

conver sat i on wi t h J or dan, dur i ng whi ch he expl ai ned the ki ckback

scheme. He t hen t ol d J ordan t he deci si on now i s your s whether you

want . . . t o cont i nue. J or dan asked i f Vi da Li f e woul d need t o

r epor t t he ki ckback on a 1099 t ax f orm; t he agent sai d no,

-5-


6/41

because t hey woul d mask[ t he] payment t hr ough a consul t i ng

agr eement even t hough no one woul d ever per f orm any consul t i ng.

The agent t hen t ol d J or dan, my bi ggest concer n . . . i s your

abi l i t y t o . . . f eel comf or t abl e and . . . cover or hi de t he

payment t hat you r e maki ng back t o me. J ordan r esponded, I have

no i ssues. The agent al so t ol d J or dan, I mscr ewi ng my i nvest or s

on t he hedge f und si de, but qual i f i ed t hat , They have done so

wel l i n t he past t hat anyt hi ng I do l i ke t hi s i s . . . not gonna

r eal l y hur t t hem. He t hen asked i f J or dan had any pangs . . . of

consc[ i ence] wi t h t hat . J or dan r esponded si mpl y: No. J or dan

t hen gave t he agent mat er i al s t he agent coul d use t o mi sl ead hi s

par t ner s on t he nat ur e of t he i nvest ment . J or dan al so pl edged t o

make Vi da Li f e s press r el eases say t he cash was comi ng f r om t he

sal e of f i shmeal , and not f r om Seaf i n.

At t he cl ose of t he meet i ng, J or dan pr oposed t hey si gn

t he consul t i ng and st ock subscr i pt i on agr eement s r i ght t hen and

t her e. The agent s i gned t he consul t i ng agr eement , but di r ect ed

J or dan ( who l i ved i n Cal i f or ni a) t o t ake t he subscr i pt i on agr eement

home wi t h hi m, f i l l i n cer t ai n i nf or mat i on, and t hen send i t back.

By August 31, 2011, J ordan had f i nal i zed t hese agr eement s.

Once t he execut i ves f i nal i zed t he st ock pur chase

agr eement s and t he consul t i ng agr eement s, whi ch l i st ed Waters

Edge as t he nomi nee cor por at i on to recei ve t he ki ckback, t he FBI

( posi ng as Seaf i n) wi r ed t he f i r st t r anche of appr oxi mat el y $30, 000

-6-


7/41

t o each company. Of t he $32, 000 Vi da Li f e r ecei ved, i t sent

$16, 000 t o Waters Edge. Vi da Li f e t hen di sbur sed t he r emai nder t o

J or dan, hi s cr edi t car d, hi s ni ece, hi s at t or ney, and hi s busi ness

par t ner . I n ant i ci pat i on of t he next t r anche, J or dan f abr i cat ed an

i nvoi ce, dated Sept ember 8, 2011, j ust i f yi ng a $50, 000 payment by

Vi da Li f e t o Wat er s Edge f or pur por t ed consul t i ng servi ces,

t echnol ogy assessment s, t r avel expenses, and conf er ence f ees.

Nei t her Waters Edge nor t he agent ever pr ovi ded t hese ser vi ces.

The FBI st opped t he i nvest ment s i n September 2011,

adopt i ng a cover st or y t hat Seaf i n had t r ansf er r ed J ohn Kel l y t o

i t s London of f i ce wher e he coul d no l onger execut e t hese f r audul ent

i nvest ment s. The FBI ar r est ed Prange, J or dan, and t he ot her

par t i ci pant s sever al mont hs l at er . The t hr ee ot her execut i ves

i ndi ct ed wi t h Prange and J or dan- - St ephen Ber man, Ri char d Kr ani t z,

and Kar en Per son- - pl ed gui l t y. Pr ange and J or dan went t o t r i al .

C. Trial

At t r i al , t he gover nment dur i ng i t s case i n chi ef pl ayed

i n shor t segment s vi deo recor di ngs of t he agent s meet i ngs and

phone conver sat i ons wi t h Prange, hi s meet i ng wi t h J or dan, and hi s

meet i ngs wi t h t he other execut i ves. Af t er pl ayi ng each segment ,

t he gover nment asked the agent t o cl ar i f y par t i cul ar st at ement s

made dur i ng t hese conver sat i ons. For exampl e, af t er pl ayi ng a cl i p

wher e Pr ange asked t he agent whet her he woul d have an open l i ne of

communi cat i on t o [ b] r i ng ot her t hi ngs t o you, t he agent

-7-


8/41

t est i f i ed t hat he under st ood Pr ange s quest i on t o be ref er enci ng

Pr ange s abi l i t y and wi l l i ngness t o br i ng ot her compani es t o do

t hese st ock f r aud deal s. As t o J or dan, af t er pl ayi ng t he cl i p

where the agent asked J ordan i f he was comf ort abl e hi di ng t he

ki ckback and J ordan r esponded I have no i ssues, t he gover nment

asked t he agent what he t hought J ordan s r esponse meant . The agent

answered: I t s my under st andi ng t hat Mr . J or dan was cl ear t hat

t hi s was an i l l egal st ock deal and he was wi l l i ng t o par t i ci pat e i n

i t . Si mi l ar l y, when asked why he t ol d J or dan I m scr ewi ng my

i nvest or s on t he hedge f und si de, t he agent t est i f i ed t hat t hi s

was so he coul d make cl ear t o Mr . J or dan t hat t hi s i s not a

l egi t i mat e t r ansact i on. Af t er pl ayi ng t he segment wher e t he agent

asked J ordan i f he had any pangs of consc[ i ence] about what t hey

wer e doi ng and J or dan r esponded no, t he agent t est i f i ed hi s

under st andi ng f r om t hi s r esponse was t hat Mr . J or dan had no

pr obl em wi t h what I was doi ng by scr ewi ng my i nvest or s. Prange

di d not obj ect t o t hi s l i ne of quest i oni ng at t r i al . J or dan s

r epeat ed obj ect i ons wer e, f or t he most par t , over r ul ed.

I n t hei r def ense, Prange and J ordan cl ai med ent r apment

t hr oughout t r i al and sought j udgment s of acqui t t al on t hi s basi s.

The di st r i ct cour t deni ed t hese mot i ons, but i nst r uct ed t he j ury on

t he def ense of ent r apment . The cour t t ol d t he j ur y t hat , t o

convi ct , [ i t ] must be convi nced t hat t he gover nment has proven

beyond a r easonabl e doubt t hat [ t he] def endant was not ent r apped.

-8-


9/41

The gover nment coul d sat i sf y i t s bur den i n one of t wo ways, t he

cour t expl ai ned: I t mi ght demonst r at e t hat t he cooper at i ng

wi t ness or undercover agent di d not persuade or t al k t he def endant

i nt o commi t t i ng t he cr i me. Al t er nat i vel y, t he gover nment coul d

est abl i sh t hat t he def endant . . . was r eady and wi l l i ng t o commi t

t he cr i me wi t hout any per suasi on f r om t he cooper at i ng wi t ness,

undercover agent or any other government agent .

At t he cl ose of t r i al , t he di str i ct cour t not i f i ed t he

par t i es t hat i t pl anned t o pr ovi de a copy of t he super sedi ng

i ndi ct ment t o t he j ur y but woul d r edact t he names of t he t hr ee

ot her execut i ves who had pl ed gui l t y. The cour t r ef used, however ,

t o t ake out al l of t he r ef er ences t o t he co- conspi r at or s.

Def endant s obj ect ed. They ur ged t he cour t t o r edact t he

super sedi ng i ndi ct ment s I nt r oduct i on and Backgr ound sect i ons

because t hese sect i ons cont ai ned numerous r epr esent at i ons

i ncl udi ng act s by i ndi vi dual s who ar e not on t r i al whi ch ar e

pr ej udi ci al . Def endant s al so compl ai ned t hat t he i ndi ct ment

r ef er enced t he ter m nomi nee compani es i n quot at i ons when

r ef er r i ng t o t he agent s nomi nee compani es. The cour t over r ul ed

t hese obj ect i ons and submi t t ed t he i ndi ct ment t o t he j ur y. But i t

al so i nst r uct ed t he j ur y [ n] ot . . . t o be concer ned wi t h t he

gui l t of any ot her per son or per sons not on t r i al as a def endant i n

t hi s case, and expl ai ned t hat an I ndi ct ment i s not evi dence of

any ki nd agai nst t he def endant .

-9-


10/41

Ul t i mat el y, t he j ur y convi ct ed bot h Def endant s on al l

count s: Prange wi t h t hr ee count s of conspi r acy t o commi t

secur i t i es f r aud, i n vi ol at i on of 18 U. S. C. 1349; and ei ght

count s of wi r e f r aud, i n vi ol at i on of 18 U. S. C. 1343, 1349, and

2; and J or dan wi t h one count of conspi r acy to commi t secur i t i es

f r aud, i n vi ol at i on of 18 U. S. C. 1349; f our count s of wi r e f r aud,

i n vi ol at i on of 18 U. S. C. 1343, 1349, and 2; and one count of

mai l f r aud, i n vi ol at i on of 18 U. S. C. 1341, 1349, and 2. Pr ange

and J ordan t hen moved f or j udgment notwi t hst andi ng t he verdi ct or ,

i n t he al t er nat i ve, a new t r i al ar gui ng t hat no r easonabl e j ur y

coul d f i nd beyond a reasonabl e doubt t hat t he government had

di spr oven t he def ense[ ] of . . . ent r apment . . . . The di st r i ct

cour t deni ed t hese mot i ons.

D. Sentencing

I n pr epar at i on f or sent enci ng, J or dan s Pr esent ence

Report ( PSR) r ecommended hol di ng hi m account abl e f or $32, 000 i n

i nt ended l oss, r epr esent i ng t he f ul l amount of t he money

t r ansmi t t ed t o Vi da Li f e. Prange s PSR r ecommended hol di ng hi m

r esponsi bl e f or $95, 000, r ef l ect i ng t he sum t ot al of t he f unds

t r ansmi t t ed t o Vi da Li f e and t he two ot her compani es whose

execut i ves Pr ange had i nt r oduced t o t he agent . Def endant s ur ged

t he di st r i ct cour t t o r educe t hese l oss cal cul at i ons by t he mar ket

val ue of t he st ock pur chased by Seaf i n and t o cl assi f y the

ki ckbacks as cr edi t s agai nst t he l oss. The di st r i ct cour t r ej ected

-10-


11/41

t hese ar gument s and accepted t he PSRs r ecommended f i gur es. Based

on t hese number s, J or dan r ecei ved a si x- l evel i ncr ease t o hi s base

of f ense l evel and Pr ange r ecei ved an ei ght - l evel i ncr ease.

The PSR al so concl uded J or dan had al t er ed an e- mai l

bef ore pr oduci ng i t t o t he gover nment and accor di ngl y r ecommended

a t wo- l evel obst r uct i on- of - j ust i ce enhancement t o J or dan s of f ense

l evel . Mor e speci f i cal l y, i n r esponse t o a gover nment subpoena,

J or dan i ni t i al l y produced an e- mai l t o hi s l awyer , Ri char d Kr ani t z-

- who, r ecal l , pl ed gui l t y t o ot her char ges r el at ed t o t hi s st i ng- -

r ef er enci ng t he f r audul ent consul t i ng f ees as f ol l ows:

I have t o r equest t hat r est r i ct ed st ock be i ssued t o SEAFI N CAPI TAL LLC as agr eed. Both t he i ssuance of st ockand payi ng f or t he consul t i ng f ees were appr oved by theBoar d of Di r ectors on August 26, 2011.

Al t hough t he e- mai l r ef er enced t wo at t achment s, J or dan di d not

i ncl ude t hem. Af t er bei ng not i f i ed of t he mi ssi ng at t achment s,

J or dan produced t hem al ong wi t h anot her ver si on of t he e- mai l

above, wi t h t he same date and t i me st amp ( August 31, 2011, 8: 53

a. m. ) . But i n t hi s second e- mai l , t he wor d consul t i ng was no

l onger i n quot at i on mar ks. Over J or dan s obj ect i on, t he cour t

adopt ed t he PSR s concl usi on t hat del et i ng t hese quot at i on mar ks

war r ant ed an obst r uct i on- of - j ust i ce enhancement .

The gover nment al so ar gued Pr ange deser ved a f our - l evel

enhancement under U. S. S. G. 3B1. 1( a) because he organi zed or l ed

f i ve or more part i ci pant s. The PSR di d not r ecommend any

l eadershi p or management enhancement . The cour t decl i ned t he

-11-


12/41

gover nment s r equest , but ul t i mat el y f ound t hat [ Prange] was at

l east a manager and super vi sor or exer ci sed management

r esponsi bi l i t i es over t he pr oper t y, asset s or acti vi t i es of a

cr i mi nal or gani zat i on. As such, t he cour t appl i ed a t wo- l evel

enhancement t o Pr ange s of f ense l evel under 3B1. 1( c) .

The di st r i ct cour t event ual l y cal cul at ed Pr ange s

gui del i ne sent enci ng r ange at 24 t o 30 mont hs, r ef l ect i ng an

of f ense l evel of 17 and a cr i mi nal hi st or y cat egor y of I . The

di st r i ct cour t cal cul at ed J or dan s gui del i ne sent enci ng r ange at 30

t o 37 mont hs, r ef l ect i ng an of f ense l evel of 19 and a cr i mi nal

hi st or y cat egor y of I . The cour t sent enced bot h Def endant s t o

concur r ent t erms of 30 mont hs i mpr i sonment f or each count of

convi ct i on.

II. Agent Testimony

A. Testimony Against Jordan

J or dan f i r st ar gues t he di st r i ct cour t er r ed when i t

per mi t t ed the under cover agent t o i nt er pr et what he and J or dan

meant by cer t ai n quest i ons and st at ement s i n t hei r r ecor ded, f ace-

t o- f ace conver sat i on. J or dan pr eser ved hi s obj ect i ons t o t he

agent s t est i mony at t r i al so we r evi ew t hese evi dent i ar y r ul i ngs

f or an abuse of di scret i on. See Uni t ed St at es v. Al ber t el l i , 687

F. 3d 439, 445 ( 1st Ci r . 2012) . But abuse of di scr et i on i s not a

monol i t hi c st andar d. Wi t hi n i t s mar gi ns, embedded i ssues may

r ecei ve at t ent i on under mor e nar r owl y f ocused st andar ds. Thus,

-12-


13/41

embedded quest i ons of l aw engender de novo r evi ew and embedded

f i ndi ngs of f act engender cl ear - er r or r evi ew. Uni t ed St at es v.

Car r asco- De- J ess, 589 F. 3d 22, 26- 27 ( 1st Ci r . 2009) .

J or dan ar gues t he agent i mper mi ssi bl y t est i f i ed as t o

( 1) t he agent s own st at e of mi nd and i nt ent , ( 2) J or dan s st at e of

mi nd and i nt ent , and ( 3) t he ul t i mat e l egal i ssue i n t he case. He

gi ves a number of exampl es of t hi s pur port edl y i mpr oper t est i mony:

-13-


14/41

Recor ded Conver sat i on Agent s Test i mony

J or dan: Do we as acor por at i on have t o i ssue a1099?

Agent : No

J or dan: How do we go ar oundt hat ?

I t s my under st andi ng t hat[ J ordan] s engagi ng me now onhow best t o cover up theki ckback payment .

J or dan: I f [ ot herpar t i ci pat i ng compani es] havedone wel l and t hei r audi t s got hr ough t hen I m sur e our s. . . wi l l do t he same.

I under st and J or dan t o bet el l i ng me t hat t he consul t i ngagr eement - - phony consul t i ngagr eement and t he f akei nvoi ces, i f t hey passedaudi t s f r om compani est hat have al r eady done t hese

st ock deal - - f r auds wi t h, t henhe t hi nks t hat i t wi l lpass hi s as wel l .

Agent : my bi ggest concer n. . . i s your abi l i t y t o . . .f eel comf or t abl e and . . .cover or hi de t he payment t hatyou r e maki ng back t o me.

J or dan: I have no i ssues.

I t s my under st andi ng t hatMr . J or dan was cl ear t hat t hi swas an i l l egal st ock deal andhe was wi l l i ng t opar t i ci pat e.

Agent : I m scr ewi ng myi nvest ors on t he hedge f unds i de. . . .So i f you have any pangs ofcon[ sci ence] wi t h t hat .

J or dan: No.

Thi s i s anot her . . . way Ican make cl ear t o Mr . J ordant hat t hi s i s not a l egi t i mat et r ansacti on.

I under st and Mr . J or dan hadno pr obl emwi t h what I wasdoi ng by scr ewi ng myi nvest or s.

Our f i r st t ask i s t o est abl i sh whet her t he gover nment

of f er ed t hi s t est i mony as exper t t est i mony or l ay t est i mony. When

cr i t i cal evi dence i n a case consi st s of r ecor ded conver sat i ons,

-14-


15/41

of f i cer s commonl y hel p i nt er pr et [ t hese] conver sat i ons by

t r ansl at i ng j ar gon common among cr i mi nal s. Al ber t el l i , 687 F. 3d

at 446. Thi s [ t est i mony] can be admi t t ed as l ay t est i mony f r om

exper i enced of f i cers, exper t t est i mony or bot h dependi ng on

ci r cumst ances. Uni t ed St at es v. Sant i ago, 566 F. 3d 65, 69 ( 1st

Ci r . 2009) . Wher e t he basi s of an i nt er pr et at i on comes f r om t he

of f i cer s per sonal i nvol vement i n t he case, r at her t han f r om

speci al i zed out si de knowl edge, we t ypi cal l y const r ue i t as l ay

t est i mony under Feder al Rul e of Evi dence 701. See Al ber t el l i , 687

F. 3d at 44647.

J or dan s openi ng br i ef somet i mes assumes t he agent s

t est i mony was l ay t est i mony. See J or dan Br . at 25 ( Even i f t he

agent was bei ng used as some t ypeof exper t . . . . ( emphasi s

added) ) . Ot her t i mes i t assumes t he t est i mony was expert

t est i mony. See i d. at 31 ( asser t i ng t he agent s t est i mony vi ol at ed

Fed. R. Evi d. 704, whi ch appl i es onl y t o exper t wi t nesses) . Not

unt i l hi s r epl y br i ef does J or dan asser t t hat t he agent s

i nt er pr et at i ons shoul dbe cl assi f i ed as exper t t est i mony because

t he agent had al so t est i f i ed about i ndust r y t er ms. J or dan Repl y

Br . at 1. Whi l e a r epl y br i ef i s not t he pr oper pl ace t o r ai se

new ar gument s, i t i s pr oper f or a cour t t o l ook ther e f or

cl ar i f i cat i on. Uni t ed St at es v. Br adst r eet , 207 F. 3d 76, 80 n. 1

( 1st Ci r . 2000) ( ci t at i on omi t t ed) . Regar dl ess, t he f act t hat t hi s

case i nvol ved some i ndust r y j ar gon does not aut omat i cal l y t ur n t he

-15-


16/41

agent s i nt er pr et at i ons of hi s own conver sat i ons wi t h Def endant s

i nt o exper t t est i mony.

I ndeed, t he agent pr ef aced al most ever y i nt er pr et at i on he

gave wi t h I under st and t hi s t o mean, or i t i s my under st andi ng

t hat . . . . The agent never once sai d, f or exampl e, J or dan sai d

X and, i n t he f i nance i ndust r y, t hat means Y. Fur t her mor e, as t o

t he j ar gon used, t he agent used t er ms l i ke l ender of l ast r esor t

t o t r y to convey the i l l egal i t y of t hese t r ansact i ons t o bot h

Def endant s. But when pr essed on t he meani ng of t hese part i cul ar

t erms, t he agent r eadi l y admi t t ed he di d not know and di d not l ook

up t hei r meani ng i n t he busi ness communi t y. Rather , t he agent

based hi s under st andi ng of Def endant s r esponses t o t er ms l i ke

l ender of l ast r esor t on hi s per sonal under st andi ng of t hat t er m

[ i ] n t he cont ext of t hi sunder cover operat i on. ( emphasi s added) .

As such, we f ai l t o see why we shoul d t r eat t he agent s

i nt er pr et at i on of hi s own conver sat i ons as exper t t est i mony.

Al t hough l i ngui st i cal l y possi bl e, cal l i ng such t est i mony exper t

opi ni on woul d l end undue credi bi l i t y to i t and i ncrease t he r i sk

of r el i ance on i nf or mat i on not pr oper l y bef or e the j ur y as dat a on

whi ch exper t s i n t he par t i cul ar f i el d woul d r easonabl y r el y,

[ when] t he f i el d i s mer el y t he f act s of t he case. Al ber t el l i ,

687 F. 3d at 446 ( quot i ng Fed. R. Evi d. 703) ; see al so Uni t ed St at es

v. Rol l i ns, 544 F. 3d 820, 833 ( 7t h Ci r . 2008) ( Wher e t he agent s

i mpr essi ons t est i mony was based on hi s own personal obser vat i ons

-16-


17/41

and per cept i ons der i ved f r omt hi s par t i cul ar case[ , s] uch t est i mony

i s admi ssi bl e as l ay opi ni on t est i mony. ) .

Of cour se, we have pr evi ousl y det ai l ed many pot ent i al

danger s of al l owi ng t hi s f or m of i nt er pr et at i on as l ay t est i mony.

See Al ber t el l i , 687 F. 3d at 447. And J or dan, i n a concl usor y l i st

i n hi s r epl y br i ef , assert s ever y one of t hese danger s wer e

har mf ul l y mani f est ed at t r i al . Agai n, t he r epl y br i ef i s not t he

pr oper pl ace t o r ai se t hese new ar gument s. See Br adst r eet , 207

F. 3d at 80 n. 1. Moreover , J ordan onl y hi nt s at devel oped argument

as t o t wo of t hese danger s. See Uni t ed St at es v. Zanni no, 895 F. 2d

1, 17 ( 1st Ci r . 1990) ( [ I ] ssues adver t ed t o i n a per f unct or y

manner , unaccompani ed by some ef f or t at devel oped argument at i on,

are deemed wai ved. ) .

Fi r st , J or dan essent i al l y ar gues t hat we cannot t r eat t he

agent s t est i mony as admi ssi bl e l ay t est i mony because t he

gover nment f ai l ed t o l ay t he necessary f oundat i on f or l ay

t est i mony. See Al ber t el l i , 687 F. 3d at 447. The Feder al Rul es of

Evi dence r equi r e t hat l ay t est i mony be ( a) r at i onal l y based on t he

wi t ness s per cept i on; ( b) hel pf ul t o cl ear l y under st andi ng t he

wi t ness s t est i mony or t o det er mi ni ng a f act i n i ssue; and ( c) not

based on sci ent i f i c, t echni cal , or ot her speci al i zed knowl edge

wi t hi n t he scope of Rul e 702. Fed. R. Evi d. 701.

Al l udi ng t o Rul e 701( a) , J or dan ar gues t he agent was

unabl e t o poi nt t o any r at i onal basi s f or t he i nt er pr et at i on

-17-


18/41

of f er ed [ and di d] not hi ng mor e t han specul at i ng. Al ber t el l i , 687

F. 3d at 447. J or dan r el i es heavi l y on t wo Second Ci r cui t cases t o

ar gue thi s f oundat i onal el ement was not met , at l east as t o the

agent s t est i mony i nt er pr et i ng what J or dan meant by hi s s t at ement s

and r esponses dur i ng t hei r r ecor ded conver sat i on. Most

si gni f i cant l y, he ci t es Uni t ed St at es v. Gar ci a, 291 F. 3d 127 ( 2d

Ci r . 2002) , f or t he pr oposi t i on t hat [ w] hen a conver sat i on has a

l egi t i mat e pur pose under st andabl e t o a l ay person, t est i mony about

a code wi t hout some evi dence of prear r angement or some other

f oundat i on i s i nappr opr i at e. I d. at 141; see al so Uni t ed St at es

v. Rea, 958 F. 2d 1206, 1215 ( 2d Ci r . 1992) ( When a wi t ness has not

i dent i f i ed t he obj ect i ve bases f or hi s opi ni on, t he pr of f er ed

opi ni on obvi ousl y f ai l s compl et el y t o meet t he r equi r ement s of Rul e

701 . . . . ) .

We f ai l t o see how st atement s such as scr ewi ng my

i nvest or s on t he hedgef und si de coul d l end themsel ves t o a

l egi t i mat e pur pose under st andabl e t o a l ay per son. Mor eover , t he

gover nment l ai d out an obj ect i ve basi s f or t he agent s

underst andi ng t hat J ordan knew t hey were speaki ng i n coded t erms

and hi s i mpr essi on of what J ordan act ual l y meant . 2 Speci f i cal l y,

t he agent t est i f i ed t hat st ock f r aud deal s ar e di scussed

2 Cl ear l y, t he agent had personal knowl edge of what he meantwhen he spoke t o J or dan, and hi s s t at us as a par t i ci pant i n t heconver sat i on i s suf f i ci ent t o demonst r at e t he basi s of t hi sopi ni on. Gar ci a, 291 F. 3d at 140- 41.

-18-


19/41

pr i vat el y, happen qui ckl y, and empl oy coded t er mi nol ogy. 3

Fur t her more, bef or e meet i ng wi t h J or dan per sonal l y, t he agent asked

Prange, who had r ecr ui t ed J or dan i nt o t hi s scheme, about J or dan s

under st andi ng of t he scheme. Prange t ol d t he agent t hat J or dan s

money guy had expl ai ned t o J or dan t hat t hey had t r i ed di f f er ent

ways t o get f i nanci ng and t hat t hi s deal makes sense. Prange

al so t ol d t he agent , J or dan get s i t . The agent t hen pr essed

Pr ange: Al l r i ght . And he s good wi t h t he ki ckback wi t h t he 50

per cent? To whi ch Pr ange r esponded yes. The government t hus

pr ovi ded an obj ect i ve basi s f or t he agent s opi ni on t hat J or dan met

wi t h hi m per sonal l y t o di scuss par t i ci pat i ng i n an i l l egal st ock

f r aud scheme.

J or dan t hen asser t s t he gover nment di d not est abl i sh a

f oundat i on f or how t hi s l ay t est i mony was hel pf ul t o t he j ur y. See

3 To be sure, t he Second Ci r cui t has condemned, and we havest r ongl y caut i oned agai nst , a wi t ness usi ng br oad appeal s t o t het ot al i t y of t he i nvest i gat i on or pur por t i ng t o r epr esentcol l ect i ve knowl edge f or t he bases of hi s i nt er pr et at i ons. Al ber t el l i , 687 F. 3d at 448 ( quot i ng Uni t ed St at es v. Gr i nage, 390F. 3d 746, 749 ( 2d Ci r . 2004) ) . And her e, t he agent r el i ed on hi sspeci al i zed exper t i se and exper i ence i nvest i gat i ng f r auds l i ket hi s i n expl ai ni ng how st ock f r aud deal s t ypi cal l y wor k and whyi nt er pr et at i on was needed. But J or dan does not poi nt t o, and wehave not f ound, any pl ace i n t he r ecord t hat i ndi cat es t he agentpur por t ed t o base hi s i nt er pr et at i ons of J or dan s speci f i c

st at ement s on col l ect i ve knowl edge. Rat her , as expl ai ned above,t he agent r eadi l y admi t t ed on cr oss- exami nat i on t hat hi sunder st andi ng of cer t ai n t er ms mi ght not l i ne up wi t h t hei rt r adi t i onal meani ng i n t he busi ness communi t y. Fur t her mor e, unl i kei n Gr i nage, where t he agent never made any personal obser vat i ons oft he def endant , see 390 F. 3d at 749, her e, t he agent i nt er pr et ed hi sown f ace- t o- f ace conver sat i on wi t h J or dan.

-19-


20/41

Fed. R. Evi d. 701( b) . Rat her , J or dan cl ai ms, hi s conver sat i on wi t h

t he agent used everyday t erms t hat made sense cont extual l y. We

di sagr ee. J or dan of t en used abr upt st and al one wor ds or phr ases

t hat do not st r i ke us as ever yday t er ms, f or exampl e: what wi l l be

your over pay, and [ f ] or f i ve, hal f back. Li kewi se, wi t hout

pr oper cont ext , a l ay j ur y mi ght easi l y f ai l t o gr asp t he

si gni f i cance of many of J or dan s comment s. For exampl e, at one

poi nt i n t hei r conver sat i on, t he agent expl ai ned t o J or dan t hat hi s

hedge f und had Cal PERS and ot her pensi on money f r omCal i f orni a,

and al so t hat he was scr ewi ng hi s i nvest or s on t he hedge f und

si de. J or dan t hen r esponded si mpl y, my wi f e . . . doesn t wor k

wi t h t he st at e[ , ] so. Those f ami l i ar wi t h publ i c company audi t i ng

and st at e r et i r ement syst ems mi ght gr asp t he si gni f i cance of

J or dan s r esponse wi t hout any f ur t her expl anat i on, but a l ay j uror

mi ght not . The agent s own st atement s at t he meet i ngs were of t en

equal l y obscure. 4 Tr ue, J or dan- - t he Pr esi dent , CEO, and CFO of a

publ i c company- - never expr essed any conf usi on wi t h t he ver nacul ar

t he agent used or i t s si gni f i cance, but we under st and how a l ay

j uror mi ght . The agent s t est i mony t her ef or e hel ped t he j ury

cl ear l y under st and t he recor ded conver sat i on and i t s si gni f i cance.

4 For exampl e, t he agent t ol d J or dan, I vi ew you di f f er ent l yand t ake t hat as a compl i ment . . . I see you as havi ng, uh, access. . . ei t her t o vent ur e capi t al money or t o gover nment money. Fur t her mor e, i n t r yi ng t o convey t he i l l egal i t y of t he scheme t oJ or dan, t he agent used t er ms l i ke l ast r esor t , ki ckback, andpaper i ng t he f i l e.

-20-


21/41

Fi nal l y, t he agent s t est i mony was not based on

sci ent i f i c, t echni cal , or ot her speci al i zed knowl edge wi t hi n t he

scope of Rul e 702. Fed. R. Evi d. 701( c) . J or dan does not ar gue

otherwi se. As we noted above, al t hough t he agent r ef erenced hi s

speci al i zed exper t i se i n expl ai ni ng t hat st ock f r aud deal s ar e

of t en pl anned i n a coded l anguage, J ordan does not poi nt t o any

pl ace i n t he r ecor d wher e t he agent r el i ed on pr i or speci al i zed

knowl edge t o i nt er pr et t he par t i cul ar t er ms used i n hi s

conver sat i on wi t h J or dan. Rat her , t he agent s i nt er pr et at i ons

appear t o be based on hi s own personal underst andi ng of what J ordan

meant , devel oped i n t he cont ext of f ace- t o- f ace conver sat i on. See

Rol l i ns, 544 F. 3d at 832 ( admi t t i ng agent s l ay test i mony about

code words when not based on any speci al i zed knowl edge gai ned f r om

hi s l aw enf or cement t r ai ni ng and exper i ence, but i nst ead on t he

par t i cul ar t hi ngs he per cei ved f r om moni t or i ng i nt er cept ed cal l s

and ot her case- speci f i c i nvest i gat i ve act i vi t i es) . We ar e

t her ef or e sat i sf i ed t hat t he gover nment l ai d a suf f i ci ent

f oundat i on f or t he agent s l ay t est i mony i nt er pr et i ng hi s f ace- t o-

f ace conver sat i on wi t h J or dan.

The second danger J or dan al l udes t o i s t hat t he agent

usur p[ ed] t he j ur y s f unct i on by ef f ect i vel y t est i f yi ng as t o

gui l t r at her t han mer el y pr ovi di ng bui l di ng bl ocks f or t he j ur y t o

dr aw i t s own concl usi on. Al ber t el l i , 687 F. 3d at 447. I n t hi s

vei n, J or dan poi nt s out t hat t he agent r epeat edl y t est i f i ed as t o

-21-


22/41

J or dan s knowl edge of t he i l l egal i t y of t hi s scheme. But J or dan

does not expl ai n how t hi s usur ped t he j ur y s f unct i on. I nst ead, he

r el i es on an unpubl i shed di st r i ct cour t memor andum and or der f or

t he pr oposi t i on t hat [ a] n exper t wi t ness may not t est i f y as t o

anot her per son s i nt ent . No l evel of exper i ence or exper t i se wi l l

make an exper t wi t ness a mi nd- r eader . Hol mes Gr p. , I nc. v. RPS

Product s, I nc. , CI V. A. 03- 40146- FDS, 2010 WL 7867756, at *5 ( D.

Mass. J une 25, 2010) ( emphasi s added) . Yet J or dan f ai l s t o

acknowl edge t hat a l ay wi t ness may of f er an opi ni on t hat i s

r at i onal l y based on t he wi t ness s per cept i on, and t hough one

can t act ual l y read anot her per son s mi nd, one i s of t en abl e t o

i nf er , f r omwhat t he per son says or f r omt he expr essi on on hi s f ace

or ot her body l anguage, what he i s t hi nki ng. Uni t ed St at es v.

Cur escu, 674 F. 3d 735, 740 ( 7t h Ci r . 2012) . Gi ven t hat t he agent

was a l ay wi t ness, he was f r ee t o st at e hi s r at i onal l y- based

per cept i on of what J or dan was t hi nki ng dur i ng t hei r f ace- t o- f ace

conver sat i on.

Lest any doubt r emai n as t o t he pr opr i et y of t he agent s

t est i mony, J or dan s t r i al cont ai ned numer ous saf eguar ds agai nst t he

danger t hat t he agent mi ght usur p t he j ur y s f unct i on. See

Al ber t el l i , 687 F. 3d at 447. The di st r i ct cour t sust ai ned sever al

of J or dan s obj ect i ons wher e t he pr osecut i on s quest i on cal l ed f or

gener al i zed or specul at i ve r esponses. Mor eover , t he cour t af f or ded

J or dan ver y l i ber al cr oss - exami nat i on on whet her t he agent

-22-


23/41

pr oper l y under st ood t he r ecor ded st at ement s. Thi s cr oss-

exami nat i on dr ew out possi bl e al t er nat i ve i nt er pr et at i ons of

cer t ai n t er ms and phr ases- - f or exampl e conf i dent i al i t y and

l ender of l ast r esor t . Wher e such al t er nat i ves can be of f er ed,

t he pl ausi bi l i t y of t he wi t ness own posi t i on- - unl i ke, say, t hat of

a medi cal exper t - - i s r eadi l y measur ed by t he j ur y. I d. at 448.

Fi nal l y, and i n a si mi l ar vei n, J or dan ar gues t he cour t

er r ed when i t al l owed t he agent t o t est i f y t o t he ul t i mat e i ssue i n

t hi s case. The chal l enged conduct i s exempl i f i ed by t he f ol l owi ng

excerpt f rom t r i al :

Q [ t o Agent ] : How ar e you f ami l i ar wi t h Mr . Prange andMr . J or dan?A: Mr . Pr ange and Mr . J or dan bot h par t i ci pat ed i n st ockf r aud deal s t hat we had done.

But , agai n, as we expl ai ned above, J or dan f ai l s t o r ecogni ze t hat

t hi s t est i mony was pr oper l y of f er ed as l ay opi ni on t est i mony, and

l ay opi ni on i s not obj ect i onabl e j ust because i t embr aces an

ul t i mat e i ssue. Fed. R. Evi d. 704( a) ( emphasi s added) .

I n sum, because t he di st r i ct cour t pr oper l y admi t t ed t he

agent s i nt er pr et at i on as l ay test i mony and J or dan s t r i al

cont ai ned suf f i ci ent saf eguar ds agai nst t he abuse of such

t est i mony, J or dan s obj ect i ons t o t he agent s t est i mony f ai l .

B. Testimony Against Prange

Prange, on t he ot her hand, conceded at oral argument

t hat , because he di d not obj ect t o t he agent s t est i mony bel ow, we

r evi ew hi s chal l enge t o t he agent s t est i mony f or pl ai n er r or onl y.

-23-


24/41

See Al ber t el l i , 687 F. 3d at 445. Fur t her mor e, Pr ange s chal l enge

t o the agent s t est i mony consi st s of one sent ence i n hi s br i ef

j oi ni ng i n J or dan s ar gument on t hi s poi nt . As such, Pr ange s

ar gument cl ear l y f ai l s. We see no r eason t o pr ovi de any f ur t her

anal ysi s when Prange gi ves us not hi ng f ur t her t o anal yze. See

Zanni no, 895 F. 2d at 17.

III. Entrapment

Bot h Pr ange and J ordan cl ai med ent r apment t hroughout

t r i al and moved f or acqui t t al on t hi s basi s. The cour t deni ed

t hei r mot i ons f or acqui t t al as a mat t er of l aw, but submi t t ed t he

i ssue t o t he j ur y. Al as, t he j ur y l i kewi se r ej ect ed t he ent r apment

cl ai m. Never t hel ess, Def endant s mai nt ai n t he evi dence di d not

suppor t t he j ur y s verdi ct and we shoul d hol d t hey wer e ent r apped

as a mat t er of l aw.

We r evi ew t he deni al of Def endant s mot i on f or acqui t t al

de novo, aski ng whet her t he evi dence, const r ued f avor abl y t o the

gover nment , per mi t t ed r at i onal j ur or s t o concl ude, beyond a

r easonabl e doubt , t hat t he def endant [ s wer e] gui l t y as char ged.

Uni t ed St at es v. Snchez- Ber r os, 424 F. 3d 65, 77 ( 1st Ci r . 2005)

( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) . To def eat a suf f i ci ency

chal l enge pr emi sed on a def ense of ent r apment , t he evi dence, t aken

i n t he l i ght most f avor abl e t o the gover nment , need onl y suppor t a

f i ndi ng of ei t her pr edi sposi t i on or l ack of i mpr oper i nducement .

I d. ( emphasi s added) .

-24-


25/41

Def endant s f i r st argue t he Government i mpr oper l y i nduced

t hemt o engage i n st ock f r aud. An i mpr oper i nducement , however ,

goes beyond pr ovi di ng an or di nar y oppor t uni t y t o commi t a cr i me.

Uni t ed St at es v. Gendr on, 18 F. 3d 955, 961 ( 1st Ci r . 1994) ( quot i ng

J acobson v. Uni t ed Stat es, 503 U. S. 540, 550 ( 1992) ) . An

i nducement consi st s of an oppor t uni t y pl us somet hi ng el se- -

t ypi cal l y, excessi ve pr essure by the government upon t he def endant

or t he gover nment s t aki ng advant age of an al t er nat i ve,

non- cr i mi nal t ype of mot i ve. Gendr on, 18 F. 3d at 961; see al so

i d. at 96162 ( l i st i ng exampl es of i mpr oper i nducement ) .

Def endant s do not ar gue excessi ve pr essur e, nor coul d t hey. The

r ecor d i s r epl et e wi t h i nst ances wher e t he agent made cl ear t o

Def endant s t hat t hey wer e f r ee to wal k away i f t hey f el t i n any way

uncomf ort abl e wi t h t he ki ckback scheme. I nst ead, Def endant s assert

t wo al t er nat i ve f or ms of i mpr oper i nducement : Fi r st , t hey ar gue

t he government i mpr oper l y pl ayed on t he desperat i on of execut i ves

t r yi ng t o save f l ounder i ng compani es. Second, t hey ar gue t he ver y

natur e of t he st i ng amount ed t o an i mpr oper i nducement because i t

was desi gned t o appear as a l egi t i mat e i nvest or engagi ng i n

l egi t i mat e i nvest ment act i vi t i es.

The r ecor d bel i es Def endant s f i r st ar gument . Pr ange,

f or hi s par t , di d not ser ve as an execut i ve or di r ect or f or any of

t he compani es seeki ng capi t al i n t hi s oper at i on. We t hus f ai l t o

see how t he asser t ed desper at i on of t r yi ng t o save a f ai l i ng

-25-


26/41

ent er pr i se coul d af f ect hi s deci si onal cal cul us. J or dan, on t he

ot her hand, i ni t i al l y t ol d t he agent he woul d use t he capi t al t o

gr ow hi s busi ness. Yet as soon as he r ecei ved hi s f i r st t r anche,

J or dan t r ansf er r ed t hat money whi ch he di d not ki ck back t o Wat er s

Edge to hi s per sonal bank and cr edi t card account s, and t o the

account s of hi s ni ece, at t or ney, and busi ness par t ner . Faced wi t h

t hese f act s, a r easonabl e j ur y coul d concl ude beyond a r easonabl e

doubt t hat J ordan was not desperate t o save hi s company. Rather ,

t he j ur y coul d r easonabl y concl ude J or dan si mpl y succumb[ ed] t o

hi s own gr eed [ and] t he l ur e of easy money. Uni t ed St ates v.

Coady, 809 F. 2d 119, 122 ( 1st Ci r . 1987) .

Def endant s second i nducement argument , t hat t he

government made t he ki ckback scheme appear l egi t i mate, f ares no

bet t er . Whet her Def endant s knew t he scheme was i l l egal r el at es t o

[ t hei r ] i nt ent t o commi t t he i l l egal act . I t does not bear on

whether [ t hey were] i nduced t o engage i n t he ki ckback scheme.

Uni t ed St at es v. Mar i no, 868 F. 2d 549, 554 ( 3d Ci r . 1989) ( f oot not e

omi t t ed) . Def endant s do not ar gue on appeal t hat t hey l acked t he

r equi si t e mens r ea t o commi t secur i t i es f r aud- - i ndeed, an

ent r apment def ense assumes t he necessar y mens r ea exi st ed. 5 See

5 J or dan asser t s t hat ki ckbacks ar e commonpl ace i n hi s nat i vecount r y of Per u- - whet her t hey ar e l egal i n Per u he does not say.J or dan Br . at 9. Regar dl ess , i gnor ance of t he l aw i s not anexcuse f or vi ol at i ng i t , Uni t ed St at es v. Deni s, 297 F. 3d 25, 31( 1st Ci r . 2002) , and J or dan nowher e expl ai ns why hi s ki ckback-f r i endl y backgr ound shoul d excuse hi s i l l egal act i vi t i es her e.

-26-


27/41

Uni t ed St at es v. Dyke, 718 F. 3d 1282, 1286 ( 10t h Ci r . 2013) . Nor

do they ar gue the evi dence was i nsuf f i ci ent t o show t hey i nt ended

t o commi t secur i t i es f r aud. They cannot now boot st r ap t hat

argument i n under t he gui se of ent r apment .

I n sum, a reasonabl e j ur y concl uded t he government di d

not i mpr oper l y i nduce Def endant s t o commi t secur i t i es f r aud, and we

cannot say t he government i mproper l y i nduced Def endants as a mat t er

of l aw. Gi ven t he l ack of an i mpr oper i nducement , Def endant s

ent r apment cl ai m f ai l s and we need not addr ess predi sposi t i on.

IV. Submitting the Superseding Indictment to the Jury

Def endant s al so ar gue t he di st r i ct cour t commi t t ed t wo

r ever si bl e er r or s i n submi t t i ng t hei r super sedi ng i ndi ct ment t o the

j ury. Def endant s f i r st ar gue t hat t he I nt r oduct i on and

Backgr ound sect i ons of t hei r i ndi ct ment asser t ed f act s t hat had

not been pr oven at t r i al and r el ated t o co- def endant s who were not

on t r i al because t hey had pl ed gui l t y. Second, t hey ar gue t hat

al l owi ng t he t erm nomi nee compani es t o r emai n i n quot at i ons i n

t he i ndi ct ment was t ant amount t o pr ovi di ng t he j ur y wi t h

t est i moni al evi dence not subj ect t o cr oss- exami nat i on.

We have l ong f ol l owed [ t ] he wel l ni gh uni ver sal r ul e

t hat , subj ect t o a pr oper cover i ng i nst r uct i on, whet her t he

i ndi ct ment shoul d be gi ven t o t he j ur y f or use dur i ng i t s

del i ber at i ons i s wi t hi n t he di scr et i on of t he t r i al cour t . Uni t ed

St at es v. Medi na, 761 F. 2d 12, 21 ( 1st Ci r . 1985) . We wi l l f i nd

-27-


28/41

no f aul t wi t h t he exer ci se of t he cour t s di scr et i on i n t hi s manner

unl ess t he def endant can show unf ai r pr ej udi ce as a r esul t of t he

cour t s appr oach. Uni t ed St at es v. Gl ant z, 847 F. 2d 1, 10 ( 1st

Ci r . 1988) . Whet her al l or a par t of t he i ndi ct ment i s pr ovi ded

t o t he j ur y, one way t o avoi d unf ai r pr ej udi ce i s t o gi ve a pr oper

cover i ng i nst r ucti on. I d.

Def endant s cl ai ms of er r or ar e dubi ous at best .

Def endant s r el y on al l egat i ons i n t he i ndi ct ment r el at i ng t o St eve

Berman and Ri chard Kr ani t z, whose names were apparent l y redact ed, 6

as t he pr i me exampl e of asser t ed f act s not pr oven at t r i al . But

t he gover nment presented a weal t h of evi dence on Berman and

Kr ani t z s i nvol vement i n t he conspi r acy, i ncl udi ng r ecor di ngs of

numerous conver sat i ons i n whi ch t hey t ook part . Moreover ,

Def endant s do not expl ai n how t he quot at i on marks ar ound nomi nee

compani es t r ansf or m t hi s t er m i nt o a f or m of t est i mony.

Even assumi ng t he supersedi ng i ndi ct ment pr ovi ded cause

f or concern, however , Def endant s cannot show pr ej udi ce here both

because no pr ej udi ce i s obvi ous and because t he di st r i ct cour t gave

pr oper cover i ng i nst r uct i ons. The cour t i nst r uct ed t he j ur y t hat

an I ndi ct ment i s not evi dence of any ki nd agai nst t he def endant .

I t i s si mpl y t he f or mal met hod t hat our Const i t ut i on pr ovi des f or

6 The di st r i ct cour t i ndi cat ed i t woul d r edact t he names oft hese i ndi vi dual s because t hey had ent er ed gui l t y pl eas.Def endant s do not pr ovi de us wi t h a copy of t he i ndi ct ment t hat wassubmi t t ed t o t he j ur y, so we can onl y assume t he di st r i ct cour t di das promi sed.

-28-


29/41

char gi ng someone wi t h t he commi ssi on of a cr i me. ( emphasi s added) .

The cour t al so t ol d t he j ury: Nei t her ar e you t o be concer ned wi t h

t he gui l t of any ot her per son or per sons not on t r i al as a

def endant i n t hi s case. I n l i ght of t hese i nst r ucti ons, we f ai l

t o see how Def endant s were pr ej udi ced by submi t t i ng t o t he j ur y the

super sedi ng i ndi ct ment as r edact ed. See, e. g, Smi t h v. J enki ns,

732 F. 3d 51, 69 ( 1st Ci r . 2013) ( As i t i s a basi c pr emi se of our

j ury syst em t hat t he j ury f ol l ows t he cour t s i nst r uct i ons, we

pr esume that t he j ur y act ed accor di ng t o i t s char ge. ( i nt er nal

quot at i on mar ks and al t er at i ons omi t t ed) ) .

I ndeed, Def endant s f ai l t o ci t e a si ngl e case wher e a

cour t has over t ur ned a convi ct i on based on a di st r i ct cour t s

di scr et i onar y deci si on t o pr ovi de a copy of t he char gi ng i nst r ument

t o t he j ur y subj ect t o a pr oper cover i ng i nst r uct i on. I n hi s repl y

br i ef , J or dan r el i es on Uni t ed St at es v. Roy, 473 F. 3d 1232 ( D. C.

Ci r . 2007) , and Uni t ed St at es v. Shaf er , 455 F. 2d 1167 ( 5t h Ci r .

1972) . But t hese cases ar e i napposi t e.

I n Roy, t he t r i al cour t i nadver t ent l y submi t t ed t o t he

j ury an i ndi ct ment whi ch i dent i f i ed speci f i c predi cat e cr i mes t o

suppor t t he def endant s f el on- i n- possessi on count even though the

def endant had al r eady st i pul at ed t o hi s f el on st at us. Roy, 473

F. 3d at 1232. Thi s vi ol at ed pr i or D. C. Ci r cui t pr ecedent whi ch

est abl i shed t hat , at l east when t he def endant st i pul at es t o t he

f act of a f el ony convi ct i on, t he di st r i ct cour t shoul d avoi d

-29-


30/41

ment i oni ng t he nat ur e of t he pr i or f el ony t o t he j ur y. Uni t ed

St at es v. J ones, 67 F. 3d 320, 325 n. 10 ( D. C. Ci r . 1995) .

Never t hel ess, t he D. C. Ci r cui t af f i r med t he def endant s convi ct i on

on pl ai n er r or r evi ew, hol di ng t hat t he def endant was not

pr ej udi ced because, among ot her t hi ngs, t he t r i al cour t t ook back

t he i ncor r ect i ndi ct ment and gave a suf f i ci ent cur at i ve

i nst r uct i on. Roy, 473 F. 3d at 1239. I n so hol di ng, t he D. C.

Ci r cui t not ed t hat gi vi ng a copy of t he i ndi ct ment of t en car r i es

si gni f i cant r i sks and has f ew cor r espondi ng benef i t s. I d. at 1237

n. 2. But i t al so r ecogni zed t hat submi t t i ng t he i ndi ct ment t o t he

j ury i s common pract i ce, and even assume[ d] t hat i t woul d have

been wi t hi n t he di st r i ct cour t s di scret i on t o submi t a pr oper l y

r edact ed i ndi ct ment t o t he j ur y i n t hi s case. I d.

I n Shaf er , t he Fi f t h Ci r cui t hel d [ n] umer ous . . . i t ems

wer e er r oneousl y submi t t ed t o t he j ur y, i ncl udi ng a copy of t he

i ndi ct ment showi ng subst ant i ve charges whi ch had been di smi ssed,

and a bl ackboar d on whi ch t he prosecut or had summar i zed the

t est i mony of var i ous pr osecut i on wi t nesses. Shaf er , 455 F. 2d at

1170. The most pr ej udi ci al of t hese i t ems wer e ( 1) t he sworn

compl ai nt by a cust oms agent on t he basi s of whi ch ar r est warr ant s

of def endant s had been obt ai ned, whi ch was, i n ef f ect , a

st at ement t hat def endant s wer e gui l t y, and ( 2) a copy of a hot el

bi l l , whi ch had not been admi t t ed i nt o evi dence at t r i al , t yi ng t he

def endant s t o t he al l eged of f enses. I d. at 1169. I ndeed, t he

-30-


31/41

Fi f t h Ci r cui t di d not r ever se t he def endant s convi ct i ons t her e

based on t he submi ssi on of t hei r i ndi ct ment l i st i ng di smi ssed

char ges. Rat her , [ w] i t hout consi der i ng [ t he i ndi ct ment ] i n

det ai l , t he Fi f t h Ci r cui t concl uded, we ar e f or ced t o [ r ever se] ,

based on t he compl ai nt and t he hot el bi l l . I d. at 1170.

Fur t her mor e, t her e i s no i ndi cat i on t hat t he di st r i ct cour t t her e

gave any cover i ng i nst r uct i on as t o t he i ndi ct ment .

Def endant s have not shown any part i cul ar st atement s i n

t he i ndi ct ment t hat were not support ed by evi dence pr esent ed at

t r i al . Nor do t hey show how any i mpr opr i et i es i n t he i ndi ct ment

caused pr ej udi ce so egr egi ous as t o be beyond t he reach of t he

cour t s cover i ng i nst r uct i ons. As such, we cannot say t he cour t

abused i t s di scr et i on i n submi t t i ng t he super sedi ng i ndi ct ment t o

t he j ur y.

V. Sentencing Issues

Def endant s al so chal l enge t hei r sent ences on var i ous

gr ounds. We r evi ew sentences f or r easonabl eness, a t ask composed

of bot h pr ocedur al and subst ant i ve i nqui r i es. Uni t ed St at es v.

I nnar el l i , 524 F. 3d 286, 291 ( 1st Ci r . 2008) . We f i r st revi ew

t he pr ocedur al component of t he sent ence f or abuse of di scr et i on.

I d. at 292. [ P] r ocedur al er r or s amount i ng t o an abuse of

di scret i on mi ght i ncl ude f ai l i ng t o cal cul at e ( or i mpr oper l y

cal cul at i ng) t he Gui del i nes r ange . . . or f ai l i ng t o adequat el y

expl ai n t he chosen sent ence- - i ncl udi ng an expl anat i on f or any

-31-


32/41

devi at i on f r om t he Gui del i nes r ange. I d. ( i nt er nal quot at i ons

mar ks omi t t ed) . Onl y i f t hi s r evi ew r eveal s no abuse of di scr et i on

do we exami ne t he subst ant i ve r easonabl eness of t he sentence

i mposed. See i d.

A. Jordans Obstruction-of-Justice Enhancement

J or dan ar gues t he di st r i ct cour t er r oneousl y added a t wo-

l evel enhancement f or obst r uct i on of j ust i ce t o hi s of f ense l evel

cal cul at i on. We r evi ew f or cl ear err or t he sent enci ng cour t s

f act bound det er mi nat i on t hat an obst r uct i on of j ust i ce occur r ed.

Uni t ed St at es v. Qui r i on, 714 F. 3d 77, 79 ( 1st Ci r . 2013) . [ W] her e

t he r ecor d suppor t s at l east t wo per mi ssi bl e i nf er ences, t he

f act f i nder s choi ce bet ween t hem cannot be cl ear l y er r oneous.

Uni t ed St at es v. Bal sam, 203 F. 3d 72, 89 ( 1st Ci r . 2000) .

The Gui del i nes r ecommend i ncr easi ng a def endant s of f ense

l evel by t wo l evel s i f ( 1) t he def endant wi l l f ul l y . . . at t empt ed

t o obst r uct or i mpede[ ] t he admi ni st r at i on of j ust i ce wi t h r espect

t o t he i nvest i gat i on, pr osecut i on, or sent enci ng of t he i nst ant

of f ense of convi ct i on, and ( 2) t he obst r uct i ve conduct r el at ed t o

( A) t he def endant s of f ense of convi ct i on and any r el evant conduct

. . . . U. S. S. G. 3C1. 1. The comment ar y t o 3C1. 1 speci f i cal l y

l i st s pr oduci ng or at t empt i ng t o pr oduce a f al se, al t er ed, or

count er f ei t document or r ecor d dur i ng an of f i ci al i nvest i gat i on or

j udi ci al proceedi ng, as an exampl e of obst r uct i on of j ust i ce

-32-


33/41

war r ant i ng a t wo- l evel enhancement . I d. at 3C1. 1 cmt . 4( C)

( emphasi s added) .

Recal l t hat , i n r esponse t o a subpoena, J or dan i ni t i al l y

pr oduced, al ong wi t h var i ous ot her cor r espondence, an e- mai l

r ef er enci ng t he f r audul ent consul t i ng f ees wi t h t he wor d

consul t i ng i n quot at i on mar ks. He l at er produced t hi s e- mai l s

at t achment s wi t h a copy of t he same e- mai l , wi t h an i dent i cal t i me

st amp ( August 31, 2011, at 8: 53 a. m. ) , except t hat consul t i ng was

no l onger i n quot at i on mar ks. The PSR assert ed t hi s war r ant ed a

t wo- l evel enhancement because i t showed J ordan had del eted t he

quot at i on mar ks bef or e r epr oduci ng t he e- mai l and t her ef or e

al t er ed an e- mai l chai n . . . t hat was pr oduced pur suant t o a

subpoena. At sent enci ng, J or dan of f er ed an al t er nat e expl anat i on:

He t ypi cal l y sends t wo or t hr ee e- mai l s on di f f er ent ser ver s

because he has a l ot of e- mai l pr obl ems. And, i n t hi s i nst ance,

he sent t wo e- mai l s t o hi s l awyer , but i n t he second e- mai l he

t hought bet t er of put t i ng i n t hose quot at i ons. The gover nment

ar gued t hi s expl anat i on was nonsensi cal . Ul t i mat el y, t he cour t

agr eed wi t h t he gover nment s posi t i on, and f ound J or dan obst r uct ed

j ust i ce by al t er i ng t he e- mai l .

Al t hough J or dan s al t er nat e expl anat i on may be possi bl e,

t he PSR s t heory i s much mor e pl ausi bl e gi ven t he i dent i cal

t i mest amp. The di st r i ct cour t accor di ngl y coul d not commi t cl ear

-33-


34/41

er r or by adopt i ng t he PSR s f act ual pr edi cat e, war r ant i ng a t wo-

l evel enhancement under 3C1. 1.

B. Pranges Management Enhancement

Pr ange at t acks t he di st r i ct cour t s i mposi t i on of a t wo-

l evel management enhancement . I n pr epar i ng f or Prange s

sentenci ng, t he government sought a f our - l evel enhancement under

U. S. S. G. 3B1. 1( a) , asser t i ng Pr ange or gani zed or l ead f i ve or

mor e par t i ci pant s. Prange s PSR, however , mai nt ai ned no such

enhancement shoul d appl y because Prange di d not di r ect hi s co-

conspi r at or s, each of whom wi l l i ngl y became a par t of , and pl ayed

an act i ve r ol e i n, t he scheme. At sent enci ng, t he cour t st at ed

t hat Prange may not be deser vi ng of a f ul l f our - l evel enhancement

f or hi s r ol e i n t he of f ense as a l eader or or gani zer , but he i s

sur el y deservi ng of at l east a t wo- l evel enhancement f or hi s

management and supervi sor y r ol e. The cour t accordi ngl y enhanced

Pr ange s of f ense l evel by two l evel s.

The Gui del i nes aut hor i ze a t wo- l evel enhancement i n cases

where t he def endant was an organi zer , l eader , manager , or

super vi sor i n any cri mi nal acti vi t y . . . . U. S. S. G. 3B1. 1( c).

To j ust i f y t he t wo- l evel enhancement , [ e] vi dence of t he

def endant s r ol e . . . need onl y show t hat he exer ci sed aut hor i t y

or cont r ol over anot her par t i ci pant on one occasi on. Uni t ed

St at es v. Fl or es- De- J ess, 569 F. 3d 8, 34 ( 1st Ci r . 2009)

( ci t at i on omi t t ed) . I ndeed, si mpl y r ecrui t i ng a co- def endant ,

-34-


35/41

by i t sel f , const i t ut es a manager i al f unct i on under 3B1. 1.

Uni t ed St at es v. Savar ese, 686 F. 3d 1, 20 ( 1st Ci r . 2012) . I t i s

not enough, however , t hat t he def endant merel y cont r ol l ed,

or gani zed, or managed cr i mi nal act i vi t i es; r at her , he must i nst ead

cont r ol , or gani ze, or manage cr i mi nal act or s. Fl or es- De- J ess,

569 F. 3d at 34 ( emphasi s i n or i gi nal ) ( quot i ng Uni t ed St at es v.

Of r ayCampos, 534 F. 3d 1, 40 ( 1st Ci r . 2008) ) .

The di st r i ct cour t based t hi s enhancement on t wo

al t er nat e f i ndi ngs: ( 1) t hat [ Pr ange] was at l east a manager and

super vi sor , or ( 2) t hat he exer ci sed management r esponsi bi l i t i es

over t he pr oper t y, asset s or act i vi t i es of a cr i mi nal

or gani zat i on. Al t hough t he cour t s second f i ndi ng, may war r ant an

upwar d depar t ur e, i t i s not a val i d basi s f or an of f ense l evel

enhancement under 3B1. 1. See i d. at cmt . 2. Never t hel ess, t he

r ecor d ampl y suppor t s t he cour t s f i r st f i ndi ng: t hat Pr ange was at

l east a manager or supervi sor . At a mi ni mum, Prange r ecrui t ed

J or dan and mul t i pl e ot her execut i ves i nt o t hi s scheme by

i nt r oduci ng t hem t o E. H. , gaugi ng t hei r wi l l i ngness t o i ssue

ki ckbacks, and r ecommendi ng t hemt o t he agent . Thus, t he cour t di d

not cl ear l y er r i n f i ndi ng Pr ange was at l east a manager or

super vi sor , war r ant i ng a 3B1. 1 two- l evel enhancement .

C. Calculation of Loss

Bot h Def endant s ar gue the di st r i ct cour t made two er r or s

i n cal cul at i ng t he amount of l oss at t r i but ed t o t hem. Fi r st , t hey

-35-


36/41

ar gue they shoul d have been gi ven cr edi t f or t he ki ckbacks pai d

because t hey unwi t t i ngl y pai d these ki ckbacks t o t he gover nment .

Second, t hey ar gue t hey shoul d be gi ven cr edi t f or t he val ue of t he

st ock pur chased by the gover nment i n t hese f r audul ent t r ansact i ons.

We r evi ew t he di st r i ct cour t s i nt er pr et at i on and

appl i cat i on of t he Gui del i nes de novo; we revi ew r el at ed f i ndi ngs

of f act , i ncl udi ng t he cour t s cal cul at i on of amount of l oss, f or

cl ear er r or . I nnar el l i , 524 F. 3d at 290. The Gui del i nes def i ne

l oss as t he gr eat er of act ual or i nt ended l oss. U. S. S. G.

2B1. 1, cmt . 3( A) . We have endor sed a pr agmat i c, f act - speci f i c

appr oach, t o cal cul at i ng such l oss, st at i ng t hat l oss shoul d be

cal cul at ed usi ng t he ent i r e pr i ce pai d f or t he pr oduct , unr educed

by any of f set t i ng val ue, i f t he pr oduct mi sr epr esent ed by t he

def endant i s wor t hl ess. Uni t ed St at es v. I henacho, 716 F. 3d 266,

278 ( 1st Ci r . 2013) ( ci t at i on omi t t ed) .

Def endant s ar gument t hat t hey shoul d be gi ven cr edi t f or

t he ki ckback pl ai nl y f ai l s. To gi ve Def endant s credi t f or t he

ki ckback woul d i gnor e the f act t hat l oss under 2B1. 1 i ncl udes

i nt ended l oss, whi ch i ncl udes i nt ended pecuni ar y har m t hat woul d

have been i mpossi bl e or unl i kel y t o occur ( e. g. , as i n a gover nment

st i ng oper at i on . . . ) . U. S. S. G. 2B1. 1, cmt . 3( A) ( i i ) . Her e,

by t aki ng money Def endant s bel i eved bel onged t o i nvest ors i n a

hedge f und and payi ng f i f t y per cent as a ki ckback t o the cor r upt

manager s per sonal nomi nee company, Def endants i ntended to cause a

-36-


37/41

l oss t o t he hedge f und i nvest or s of at l east t he amount of t he

ki ckback pai d. The f act t hat no i nvest or s act ual l y suf f er ed t hi s

i nt ended l oss i s i r r el evant under 2B1. 1.

On t he ot her hand, t he government admi t s i t r ecei ved

shar es of r est r i ct ed st ock i n t he compani es t o whi ch i t sent

t r anches. The gover nment al so admi t s that i f t he shar es recei ved

car r y any f ai r mar ket val ue, t he di st r i ct cour t shoul d have reduced

i t s l oss cal cul at i on by t hat amount . See i d. at cmt . 3( E) ( i )

( Loss shal l be r educed by . . . t he f ai r mar ket val ue of t he

pr oper t y r et ur ned and t he ser vi ces r ender ed . . . . ) . But t he

di st r i ct cour t never made any f i ndi ngs as to t he val ue of t hese

shar es. Never t hel ess, t he gover nment asser t s t he di st r i ct cour t

must have f ound t hese part i cul ar shar es were wort hl ess because

Def endant s di d not pr esent suf f i ci ent evi dence of t hei r val ue. We

ar e not so sur e.

Def endant s argued bel ow t hat t he PSRs shoul d have

cr edi t ed t hemwi t h t he val ue of t he shar es t he gover nment r ecei ved.

The PSRs r esponded t o t hese obj ect i ons by r easoni ng t hat Def endant s

shoul d be hel d account abl e f or t he t ot al val ue of t he t r ansact i on

or t r ansact i ons si mpl y because t hey knew t hese t r ansact i ons wer e

not l egi t i mat e. The gover nment , f or i t s par t , ar gued at J or dan s

sent enci ng t hat t he Vi da Li f e st ock was wor t hl ess s i mpl y because

t her e was no mar ket f or i t . But nei t her r eason hol ds wat er .

-37-


38/41

I ndeed, t he PSRs r easoni ng f l i es i n t he f ace of our

pr ecedent . I n cal cul at i ng l oss based on f r aud, we have l ong

r ecogni zed

t hat t her e ar e t wo t ypes of f r aud: The f i r st t ype off r aud i mpl i cat es t he t r ue con ar t i st , . . . who i nt endsonl y t o pocket t he money wi t hout r ender i ng [ anythi ng] i nr et ur n. The second t ype of f r aud i nvol ves a per son whowoul d not have at t ai ned t he cont r act or l oan but f or t hef r aud, but who f ul l y i nt ends t o per f or m.

Uni t ed St at es v. Bl ast os, 258 F. 3d 25, 30 ( 1st Ci r . 2001) ( quot i ng

Uni t ed St at es v. Hagger t , 980 F. 2d 8, 1213 ( 1st Ci r . 1992) ) ; see

al so Uni t ed St at es v. Smi t h, 951 F. 2d 1164, 1167 ( 10t h Ci r . 1991)

( A thi ef who st eal s $100, 000 i s more cul pabl e t han a sal esman who

obt ai ns $100, 000 by sel l i ng a vi ct i m an $80, 000 house he

f r audul ent l y r epr esent s as bei ng wor t h $100, 000. I n t he l at t er

case, i t makes no sense t o suggest t hat $100, 000 i s t he accur at e

measur e of t he vi ct i m s l oss. ) . Yet , by hol di ng Def endant s

r esponsi bl e f or t he f ul l amount of t he f r audul ent t r ansact i ons

si mpl y because t hey knew t he t r ansact i ons wer e f r audul ent , t he

PSRs r esponse t o Def endant s obj ect i ons woul d r ender t he

di st i nct i on bet ween t hese t wo types of f r aud i l l usor y.

Fur t her mor e, on appeal , t he par t i es do not di sput e t hat

t he common st ock of t he compani es at i ssue had some val ue. At

sent enci ng, t he gover nment asser t ed no mar ket exi st ed f or Vi da Li f e

st ock because i n cont r ast t o [ t he] ot her compani es . . . t hat wer e

at i ssue, t her e was vi r t ual l y no t r adi ng of Vi da Li f e shar es.

( emphasi s added) . But t he government s own wi t ness at t r i al

-38-


39/41

t est i f i ed t o mul t i pl e t r ades of Vi da Li f e common shar es i n 2011 at

bet ween $0. 03 and $0. 05 per shar e. I n i t s response br i ef , t he

government argues t hese part i cul ar shar es were wort hl ess because

t hey wer e r est r i ct ed shar es, whi ch wer e not f ul l y t r ansf er abl e or

sal abl e. Of cour se, r est r i ct ed shar es may be l ess val uabl e t han

common shar es because t hey are not f r eel y t r ansf erabl e. But t he

gover nment ci t es no aut hor i t y, f r om t he recor d or el sewher e, f or

t he pr oposi t i on t hat t he shar es t he government acqui r ed were

wor t hl ess si mpl y because t hey wer e r est r i ct ed. Au cont r ai r e,

cour t s of t en assi gn a val ue t o r est r i ct ed shar es. See, e. g. ,

Uni t ed St at es v. Roush, 466 F. 3d 380, 385- 86 ( 5t h Ci r . 2006)

( [ T] he f act t hat t he st ock was r est r i ct ed at al l t i mes dur i ng 1998

di d not r ender i t s f ai r mar ket val ue ei t her zer o or de mi ni mus f or

t he pur poses of i ncome cal cul at i ons. ) ; Scul l y v. US WATS, I nc. ,

238 F. 3d 497, 514 ( 3d Ci r . 2001) ( af f i r mi ng t he di st r i ct cour t s

r ef usal t o di scount t he val ue of st ock shar es si mpl y because they

wer e r est r i ct ed) .

At or al ar gument , t he gover nment asser t ed t he di st r i ct

cour t must have f ound t he shar es were wor t hl ess because Def endant s

di d not pr ovi de suf f i ci ent evi dence t o show t he shar es had any

par t i cul ar val ue, and t hus, t he cour t was ent i t l ed t o di sr egar d

t hem i n i t s amount of l oss cal cul at i on. But , agai n, t he di st r i ct

cour t nowher e made such a f i ndi ng. Rat her , t he cour t s t er se

expl anat i on as t o t he amount of l oss i ndi cat es i t pr obabl y f ol l owed

-39-


40/41

one of t he or i gi nal er r oneous ar gument s put f or t h by the PSR and

t he gover nment . As t o J or dan, t he cour t st at ed t he l oss was, i n

f act , $32, 000, t he f ul l amount of t he t r ansact i on, and not some

net t ed out amount . . . r ef l ect i ve of [ t he] al l eged val ue of t he

t r ansf er r ed st ock. ( emphasi s added) . Si mi l ar l y, t he cour t st at ed

onl y t hat Pr ange i s r esponsi bl e f or t he l oss as cal cul at ed by t he

pr obat i on of f i cer , namel y, i ncl udi ng al l of t he amount s pai d t o t he

co- conspi r at or s. ( emphasi s added) . Per haps t he cour t coul d have

f ound t hese shar es were wort hl ess, but t he recor d does not show t he

cour t must have hel d t hi s vi ew. I ndeed, t he government suggest ed

at oral argument t hat , t o t he ext ent we are concerned about t he

di st r i ct cour t s f ai l ur e t o make any f act ual f i ndi ngs on t hi s

poi nt , we shoul d remand to al l ow t he cour t t o make t hose f i ndi ngs.

Ther e i s a st r ong l i kel i hood t hat t he cour t based

Def endant s amount of l oss enhancement s on an er r oneous l egal

gr ound r at her t han a possi bl e unspoken f act ual deter mi nat i on.

Fur t her mor e, a f i ndi ng t hat t he shar es at i ssue had even a ver y

smal l val ue coul d make a si gni f i cant di f f er ence under t he

Gui del i nes. 7 As such, we accept t he gover nment s i nvi t at i on and

7 For exampl e, gi ven t hat t he di st r i ct cour t hel d J or danr esponsi bl e f or $32, 000 i n l oss, i f t he Gover nment s 400, 000 Vi da

Li f e shar es had a combi ned val ue of even $2, 000- - or j ust hal f acent per shar e- - J or dan coul d be hel d r esponsi bl e f or no mor e t han$30, 000 i n l oss and hi s amount of l oss enhancement woul d be r educedby t wo l evel s. See U. S. S. G. 2B1. 1( b) ( 1) ( D) . Si mi l ar l y, becausePr ange was hel d r esponsi bl e f or $95, 000 i n l oss, i f al l of t heshar es procur ed f r omal l of Pr ange s co- conspi r at or s had a combi nedval ue of $25, 000 or more, he coul d be hel d r esponsi bl e f or no more

-40-


41/41

r emand t hese cases f or r esent enci ng so t he di st r i ct cour t can make

f act ual f i ndi ngs as t o t he val ue of t he per t i nent shar es acqui r ed

by t he government dur i ng the st i ng. 8

VI. Conclusion

For t he r easons st at e above, we AFFI RM Def endant s

convi ct i ons but REMAND t hei r cases t o t he di st r i ct cour t wi t h

i nst r uct i on t o vacat e Def endant s sent ences and r esent ence t hem

accor di ng t o t hi s opi ni on.

t han $70, 000 i n l oss, and hi s amount of l oss enhancement woul dl i kewi se be r educed. See i d. at ( b) ( 1) ( E) .

8 Because t he di st r i ct cour t commi t t ed pr ocedur al er r or i nf ormul at i ng Def endant s sent ences, we need not addr ess t hesubst ant i ve r easonabl eness of t hose sent ences her e.

Date post:	02-Mar-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	scribd-government-docs
View:	219 times
Download:	0 times

United States v. Prange, 1st Cir. (2014)

Documents