Justia White Collar Crime Opinion Summaries

Defendant appealed his conviction and sentence for sixteen counts of wire fraud under 18 U.S.C. 1343. Defendant's conviction stemmed from his involvement in a scheme to obtain government procurement contracts set aside by the Small Business Administration for minority-owned small businesses. The court concluded that sufficient evidence supports the convictions. However, the court concluded that government contracts awarded through an affirmative action contracting program are not “government benefits” under USSG 2B1.1 cmt. n.3(F)(ii), such that procurement frauds involving those contracts are properly treated under the special government benefits rule for loss calculation rather than under the general rule. Therefore, the district court should have applied the general rule for loss calculation in this case. The court concluded that the loss amount should have reflected not the total contract price, but rather the contract price less the fair market value of services rendered by the Joint Venture to the procuring agencies. By treating the entire face value of the contracts as loss for purposes of section 2B1.1 and not deducting the fair market value of services rendered by the Joint Venture, the district court procedurally erred in calculating the Guidelines range in this case. Accordingly, the court vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Harris" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of one count of conspiracy to commit health care fraud, seven counts of health care fraud, and seven counts of aggravated identity theft. Defendant was sentenced to 135 months' imprisonment and ordered to pay $599,128.02 in restitution. The court concluded that there was sufficient evidence to convict defendant of the charges, and the district court did abuse its discretion in denying defendant's motion for a new trial without first holding an evidentiary hearing where defendant's arguments rest on either non-exculpatory testimony or conclusory assertions. However, the court concluded that the district court abused its discretion by calculating the total loss suffered by the victims because the district court procedurally erred by failing to credit defendant for the fair market value of legitimate health care services that his hospitals rendered to patients. Therefore, the court vacated defendant's sentence, as well as the restitution order. The court remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Mahmood" on Justia Law

Defendant, in an attempt to shield a residential property from foreclosure, transferred his assets through two entities and caused three bankruptcies to be filed. The district court convicted defendant of bankruptcy fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. 157(3). The court rejected defendant's claims regarding constructive amendments to the indictment, concluding that defendant's conviction was based on the 2007 scheme to defraud alleged in the indictment and not a different or broader scheme; the district court did not plainly err in formulating the elements of the bankruptcy fraud conviction; and the district court’s formulation of the indictment’s misrepresentation did not constructively amend the indictment, and there is no plain error. Finally, the court concluded that the evidence was sufficient to convict defendant and the district court's findings are supported by substantial evidence. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Chaker" on Justia Law

Jason Dvorin appealed his conviction of conspiracy to commit bank fraud. Dvorin's appeal has been consolidated with the appeal of Mindy Sauter, the attorney who prosecuted defendant during his first trial. Dvorin asserted that the district court erred in: (1) denying his request for an apparent-authority jury instruction; (2) denying his request for a special unanimity jury instruction; (3) overruling his objections under Federal Rules of Evidence 701 and 704 to the government counsels’ and witnesses’ use of the terms “fraud,” “fraudulent check,” or “conspiracy”; (4) excluding extrinsic evidence of and cross-examination regarding the district court’s findings that Chris Derrington, Pavillion Bank's executive vice president, testified falsely in a prior proceeding; (5) declining to award sanctions for prosecutorial discovery misconduct; (6) admitting the testimony of Chase Bank representative Arthemis Lindsay despite the government’s failure to timely designate Lindsay as a possible witness on its witness list; and (7) permitting the government to add a forfeiture count to the second superseding indictment before the second trial and entering a forfeiture judgment at sentencing without having a jury find the facts essential to that judgment. Sauter contends that the district court erroneously found that she violated Brady, Giglio, and Napue and acted “recklessly” by failing to timely disclose Derrington’s plea agreement supplement. The court reversed the district court’s denial of Dvorin’s motion to dismiss the forfeiture account for prosecutorial vindictiveness because the presumption of vindictiveness applied in this case where the government added a forfeiture notice in the second superseding indictment, and the government failed to overcome this presumption. The court affirmed in all other respects. View "United States v. Dvorin" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to an offense related to a scheme to defraud the DOE and the district court ordered each defendant involved in the scheme to pay restitution. On appeal, defendant challenged the district court's denial of the Government's proposed application of restitution payments to a codefendant (Otto). The court concluded that a more appropriate mechanism for the court to apply is a hybrid approach to restitution payments where multiple defendants are held liable for injuries caused by a common scheme. In this case, the district court’s concern - that requiring payment from Otto would render both Otto and another codefendant (Reed) responsible for restitution in excess of the loss attributable to their conduct - is misplaced. Payments requested by the defendants encompass overlapping injuries due to each defendant's conduct. The court concluded that any funds received by the defendants should be applied to the total sum owed by all defendants. In doing so, payments from Otto would also reduce the overall sum owed by defendant. Further, the district court's analysis similarly does not align with the Mandatory Victim's Restitution Act's (MVRA), 18 U.S.C. 3663A, rules regarding liability apportionment. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded. View "United States v. Sheets" on Justia Law