Justia White Collar Crime Opinion Summaries

Defendant was convicted of conspiracy to commit bank fraud, bank bribery, making false statements to a financial institution, and wire fraud and was sentenced to 78 months' imprisonment. Defendant appealed from his convictions and sentence. The court held that the district court adequately considered defendant's right to be represented by the counsel of his choice against the court's interest in the orderly administration of justice and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a continuance for defendant to retain new counsel. In light of United States v. Hildebrand, the court could not say that the district court plainly erred in considering the statements defendant made at allocution. Accordingly, the convictions and sentence were affirmed. View "United States v. Robinson" on Justia Law

Following trial, a jury convicted Defendant Wallace Laverne Lawrence III on: (1) seven counts of wire fraud/aiding and abetting involving the use of internet ads in a scheme to defraud persons seeking help in paying bills; (2) two counts of fraud in connection with access devices/aiding and abetting, and involving the use of stolen credit-card, debit-card, and bank numbers to obtain goods and services; and (3) one count of aggravated identity theft/aiding and abetting. Defendant appealed, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence to support his conviction on the wire fraud and identity theft counts, and objecting to the use of sentence enhancements for obstruction of justice and being a leader or organizer. Upon careful review of the district court record and Defendant's appellate brief, the Tenth Circuit found no merit to any of Defendant's arguments, and affirmed the district court's judgement. View "United States v. Lawrence" on Justia Law

Defendant Carri O. Adams was tried and convicted, with co-defendant Wallace Laverne Lawrence III, on seven counts of wire fraud/aiding and abetting for her role in a scheme using internet ads to defraud persons seeking help in paying bills. The district court imposed a sentence of eighteen months on each count, to run concurrently, followed by two years of supervised release on each count, also to run concurrently, and ordered Defendant to pay restitution. After timely initiation of this appeal, defense counsel moved to withdraw and filed an "Anders" brief explaining why he believed there to be no non-frivolous grounds for appeal. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit granted counsel's motion and dismissed the appeal. View "United States v. Adams" on Justia Law

Defendant, former commissioner in charge of the Environmental Services Department of Jefferson County, was convicted of charges related to federal-funds bribery for accepting cash from an engineering firm that contracted with the county for a sewer reconstruction project. Defendant subsequently appealed, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his convictions and the reasonableness of his prison term. The court held that the same evidence that supported defendant's federal-funds bribery convictions supported his conspiracy conviction. The court also held that defendant's sentence was procedurally and substantively reasonable. Accordingly, the judgment was affirmed. View "United States v. White" on Justia Law

Defendant Larry Koch appealed a jury’s verdict that found him guilty of conspiracy to commit bank fraud. Defendant admitted others committed bank fraud but disputed that he knowingly participated in their conspiracy. Alternatively, Defendant argued his conviction should have been overturned because the government failed to indict him sooner than it did. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit found sufficient evidence presented at trial with which the jury could conclude Defendant was guilty. Furthermore, Defendant's failed to carry his burden of proving he suffered actual prejudice from the time the government charged him with conspiracy and the time he went to trial. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the district court's judgment. View "United States v. Koch" on Justia Law

Defendant, former Majority Leader of the New York State Senate, appealed his conviction for honest services mail fraud, arising from defendant's failure to disclose conflicts of interest related to his receipt of substantial payments from individuals seeking to do business with the State. While defendant's appeal was pending, the Supreme Court decided United States v. Skilling, and held that 18 U.S.C. 346, the honest services statute, criminalized only fraudulent schemes effectuated through bribes or kickbacks and did not criminalize mere failures to disclose conflicts of interest. At issue was whether defendant could be retried under the standard announced in Skilling on certain counts. Although the court held that Skilling required the court to vacate the convictions on Counts Four and Eight, because the court's review of the record convinced it that the government adduced sufficient evidence under the Skilling standard, double jeopardy did not bar retrial on those two counts. The court also held that double jeopardy did not bar retrial on Count Three because, regardless of the sufficiency of the evidence, the Double Jeopardy Clause did not preclude a retrial on a charge that resulted in a hung jury. Accordingly, the court vacated the counts of conviction and remanded for further proceedings. View "United States v. Bruno" on Justia Law

In 2003, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) sought a preliminary injunction against ClearOne Communications, Inc. based on suspicions of irregular accounting practices and securities law violations. During a hearing on the preliminary injunction, Defendant and former CEO Susie Strohm was asked if she was involved in a particular sale by ClearOne that was the focus of the SEC’s case. She said she was not and approximated that she learned of the sale either before or after the end of ClearOne’s fiscal year. Based on this testimony, Defendant was later convicted of one count of perjury. She argued on appeal to the Tenth Circuit that her conviction should be reversed because (1) the questioning at issue was ambiguous, (2) her testimony was literally true, and (3) even if false, her testimony was not material to the court’s decision to grant the preliminary injunction. The Tenth Circuit disagreed on all three points. The Court found the questions were not ambiguous and there was sufficient evidence to demonstrate Defendant knowingly made false statements. Also, Defendant's testimony was material to the preliminary injunction hearing because it related to a transaction the SEC believed demonstrated ClearOne’s accounting irregularities. The Court therefore affirmed Defendant's conviction. View "United States v. Strohm" on Justia Law

Defendant Maurice Ragland was sentenced to 168 months in prison for his role in a mortgage fraud operation. He challenged his sentence as substantively unreasonable. From January 2002 to January 2004, Defendant participated in a mortgage fraud conspiracy through an appraisal business called TERM Appraisers. Defendant's role in the conspiracy consisted of providing fraudulent appraisals that manipulated values of comparable properties and falsely attributed features to homes being appraised. In addition to the false appraisals, TERM associates stole the identities of licensed appraisers and forged their signatures and license numbers on appraisals. TERM associates also created false identities and license numbers for nonexistent appraisers and used those identities to prepare the fraudulent appraisals. At sentencing, the court imposed a 16-level enhancement for a loss between $1 million and $2.5 million, and determined the proper Guidelines range to be 151 to 188 months' imprisonment. Defendant sought a variance, arguing that the Guidelines calculations did not reflect his allegedly minor role in the conspiracy. The district court refused his request, concluding that Defendant played a critical role in the conspiracy because the inflated appraisals were essential to the fraudulent mortgage loans. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit found that Defendant's perception that he should have received a shorter sentence did not rebut the presumption that his sentence was substantively reasonable. Accordingly, the Court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in calculating Defendant's sentence. View "United States v. Ragland" on Justia Law

Defendant Peter Bernegger and his co-defendant were charged in a six-count indictment with various counts of mail fraud, wire fraud, bank fraud, and conspiracy for inducing investors to invest money in two start-up companies based on several misrepresentations. Bernegger was convicted of mail and bank fraud and was sentenced to seventy months in prison and ordered to pay restitution of approximately $2 million. The Fifth Circuit affirmed as modified, holding (1) the district court did not err in refusing to sever the bank fraud count from the mail and wire fraud counts; (2) the district court did not violate the Sixth Amendment or abuse its discretion in denying Bernegger the opportunity to cross-examine a witness about an alleged discrepancy in Bernegger's testimony; (3) the district court did not plainly err by not declaring a mistrial sua sponte based on the format of the indictment; (4) there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict finding Berneggar guilty of mail fraud; and (5) because the district court clearly erred in calculating the total loss amount, the restitution amount was incorrect and was therefore modified to reflect the correct total loss amount of $1,725,000. View "United States v. Bernegger " on Justia Law

This case centered around the political corruption of former California Congressman Randall "Duke" Cunningham, who provided lucrative government defense contracts to defendant and others in exchange for expensive meals, lavish trips, a houseboat in Washington D.C., and mortgage payments for his multi-million dollar home. Defendant appealed his convictions on multiple counts of conspiracy, honest services wire fraud, bribery, and money laundering. The court held that, under its holding in United States v. Straub, the district court's determination that it was not authorized to compel use immunity for a defense witness absent a finding of prosecutorial misconduct was erroneous. Because the district court concluded that the proffered testimony would "counter" the testimony presented by the prosecution through immunized government witnesses, and the government did not challenge that finding as clearly erroneous, the court remanded the matter to the district court with instructions to conduct an evidentiary hearing to determine whether compelled use immunity regarding the proposed testimony was constitutionally required. The court affirmed the district court's judgment of conviction in all other respects. View "United States v. Wilkes, et al." on Justia Law