United States v. Chen ( 2021 )


Menu:
  •            United States Court of Appeals
    For the First Circuit
    No. 19-1962
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Appellee,
    v.
    CHARLIE JINAN CHEN, a/k/a Charlie Chen,
    Defendant, Appellant.
    APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
    FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
    [Hon. Denise J. Casper, U.S. District Judge]
    Before
    Lynch and Kayatta, Circuit Judges,
    and McElroy, District Judge.
    _____________________
    Valerie S. Carter, with whom Dennis C. Carter and Carter &
    Doyle LLP were on brief, for appellant.
    Donald C. Lockhart, Assistant United States Attorney, with
    whom Andrew E. Lelling, United States Attorney, was on brief, for
    appellee.
    May 17, 2021
       Of the District of Rhode Island, sitting by designation.
    MCELROY, District Judge.         Charlie Jinan Chen was charged
    in a four-count indictment with three counts of insider trading,
    in violation of 15 U.S.C. §§ 78j(b) and 78ff(a) (counts 1-3), and
    with one count of making a materially false statement to the
    Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), in violation of 
    18 U.S.C. § 1001
    (a)(2) (count 4).    The government alleged Mr. Chen made the
    false statement during an interview the FBI conducted of him while
    investigating insider trading.      At trial, he was acquitted of all
    three insider trading counts but convicted of making a false
    statement.     He was sentenced to two years of probation plus a
    $4,000 fine.
    The crux of the appeal involves the content of the
    allegedly false statement and related claims of prosecutorial
    misconduct and judicial mishandling of count 4.         Also material to
    the appeal is the content of a second statement which, while
    alleged by the government to have been false, was not charged.
    The two statements – one referred to as the Recall Allegation and
    the other as the Friends Allegation - are elucidated below.
    We affirm.
    Background.
    The insider trading charges pertained to Mr. Chen's
    stock trading in Vistaprint, an international printing company
    with   offices   in   Lexington,    Massachusetts.       The   government
    - 2 -
    contended that just prior to the release of eight consecutive
    quarterly   earnings    statements,      Mr.   Chen   exercised   options    to
    purchase Vistaprint stock.       In each of these quarters, Mr. Chen
    correctly predicted the rise in share prices that would follow the
    announcements.     After the bump in the stock value, he sold shares,
    realizing a profit of more than $800,000.             The government alleged
    that this pattern of purchasing and selling Vistaprint stock was
    facilitated by insider information obtained from a Vistaprint
    executive, Zhen (Jenny) Ye, or her husband, Kun (Kevin) Xu, or
    both.   According to the prosecution, the Ye-Xu family and the Chen
    family were close friends, living near each other, sending their
    children    to   the   same   language    school,     and   socializing     and
    vacationing together.
    During the FBI interview, Mr. Chen made two statements
    that are relevant here.       He told the FBI that he could not recall
    options trading in Vistaprint.        It was that answer, which we refer
    to as the "Recall Allegation", that count 4 of the indictment
    alleged was untrue.      Mr. Chen made a second statement to the FBI
    which the government also challenged as false, albeit not in a
    formal charge. In the FBI interview, Mr. Chen denied that he and
    the executive's husband, Kun or Kevin Xu, were "close friends."
    He said they were mere acquaintances who did not speak often and
    had never spoken about Vistaprint.             He claimed not to know what
    - 3 -
    Jenny did for a living.   The accusation that this denial was untrue
    is referred to here as the "Friends Allegation."          The untruth of
    the Friends Allegation was highly relevant to the prosecution. The
    relationship between Mr. Chen and the Xu couple would make more
    plausible his having received an insider "tip" from one or both of
    them that could be used in insider trading.          Further, it would
    also make more probable that his trading in Vistaprint options
    would be memorable.
    This   appeal   sends   our   attention   in   two   directions.
    First, in a series of arguments all complaining in various ways of
    the same thing, Mr. Chen contends that even though only the Recall
    Allegation was charged as materially false, the jury might have
    convicted him instead based on the uncharged Friends Allegation.
    Second, in an argument not raised during trial but preserved in
    his motion for new trial, Mr. Chen contends that the evidence was
    insufficient to prove the materiality of the false statement, an
    element of count 4.   As discussed below, all of his arguments lack
    merit.
    The Preservation Requirement.
    "It is a bedrock principle of our adversarial system
    that ostensible errors arising before and during trial must be
    properly raised and preserved in order to be reviewable on appeal."
    United States v. Holmquist, 
    36 F.3d 154
    , 163 (1st Cir. 1994).
    - 4 -
    Subject to the very limited "plain error" exception discussed
    below, a party dissatisfied with something occurring at trial must
    request some remedy from the trial judge to ensure that he or she
    can carry that complaint to an appeals court if necessary.          It is
    from such rulings that appellate claims may arise.
    The preservation requirement embodies the policy that
    trial judges be given an opportunity to take corrective action if
    some inappropriate or impermissible activity has occurred at the
    trial.   "In our adversarial system of justice, litigants must
    alert trial courts to [an] 'error-in-the-making.'"          United States
    v. Kinsella, 
    622 F.3d 75
    , 83 (1st Cir. 2010) (quoting United States
    v. Griffin, 
    818 F.2d 97
    , 100 (1st Cir. 1987)).         Only if the trial
    judge has had that opportunity and has, in the appellant's opinion,
    failed to    take appropriate      action, may the appellant       in the
    ordinary course press the issue to the appeals court.           "A timely
    objection lets the trial judge correct any errors to avoid needless
    reversals and remands."      
    Id.
    Framing of the Issues.
    Mr.   Chen's   trial   counsel   seemed   to   understand   the
    problem that might arise from the fact that only one of the
    accusations of false statements underlay count 4 of the indictment.
    At various points in the trial, she pointed out that the government
    seemed to be stressing the Friends Allegation at the expense of
    - 5 -
    the Recall Allegation and that she was afraid the jury would either
    be confused or tempted to convict on count 4 based on the knowing
    falsity of the former instead of the latter.    At no time, however,
    as will be seen in the following discussion, did she make any
    request of the trial judge to do or not do something because of
    this concern, to preserve any claim of error.
    In this Court, Mr. Chen frames        his arguments   in a
    somewhat curious way.   Rather than claim discrete errors committed
    by the trial judge, he describes various incidents of prosecution
    and judicial conduct or inaction.      We discern from his narrative
    seven discrete points of challenge:
    1.   That an improper variance occurred between the
    indictment and the proof at trial and that this variance
    violated Mr. Chen's right under Amendment VI of the United
    States Constitution "to be informed of the nature and cause
    of the accusation."
    2.   That the government "changed up" its theory between
    indictment and trial and, although the indictment stemmed
    from the Recall Allegation, the prosecution conducted itself
    as if the indictment charged the Friends Allegation. Br. of
    Defendant-Appellant at 9.
    3.   That   the   government   committed   prosecutorial
    misconduct by referring only to the Friends Allegation in its
    opening statement, and not to the Recall Allegation.
    4.   That the government "usurp[ed] Count Four" by
    arguing the Friends Allegation in its closing statement. Br.
    of Defendant-Appellant at 16.
    5.   That  neither  the   trial  judge's  preliminary
    instruction nor her final instruction clearly informed the
    - 6 -
    jury that it must find proof of the Recall Allegation – and
    not the Friends Allegation – to convict on count 4.
    6.   That the indictment – which charged the Recall
    Allegation as the allegedly false statement – was not sent to
    the jury room.
    7.   That the verdict form did not clearly inform the
    jury that to convict it must find the Recall Allegation – and
    not the Friends Allegation – to have been proven.
    These several claims amount to the same complaint:   that
    the prosecution and judge contributed, in different ways, to the
    possibility that the jury convicted on proof of the uncharged
    Friends Allegation instead of on proof of the charged Recall
    Allegation.   No matter how many different ways he finds to frame
    this assertion, however, Mr. Chen's problem is that none of these
    arguments was preserved in the trial court by an objection, a
    motion, or any other unsuccessful request or protest to the trial
    judge.1   Mr. Chen's attempt to find satisfaction in this Court is
    therefore contingent on his carrying the burden of demonstrating
    that the events at trial he complains of were "plain error []
    affect[ing] substantial rights."   Fed. R. Crim. P. 52(b).
    1 The only possible exception to this failure was a colloquy
    concerning the prosecution's opening statement.        As will be
    discussed below, however, Mr. Chen's protest was quickly withdrawn,
    and he pronounced himself satisfied with the government's opening
    statement. See infra p. 13.
    - 7 -
    Waiver and Plain Error.
    We discuss waiver and plain error at the outset to avoid
    repetition as we proceed through Mr. Chen's arguments because all
    but one of his arguments was either waived at trial or forfeited
    below.   An issue may be waived when a party purposefully abandons
    it, either expressly or by taking a contrary position at trial.
    United States v. Olano, 
    507 U.S. 725
    , 733 (1993) (defining waiver
    as "the 'intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known
    right'" (quoting Johnson v. Zerbst, 
    304 U.S. 458
    , 464 (1938)).                  An
    issue may also be waived if counsel's own conduct invited the trial
    judge's ruling.      E.g., United States v. Kakley, 
    741 F.2d 1
    , 3 (1st
    Cir. 1984) (explaining that counsel "invited" whatever error may
    have occurred by requesting the challenged instruction).                 A party
    who waives an issue at trial cannot later complain on appeal by
    pressing a position that was not taken at trial.
    "Plain error," on the other hand, is a doctrine that
    enables appellate review of forfeited issues that, while not
    deliberately abandoned at trial, were not pressed by way of an
    objection or request for ruling.             See, United States v. McPhail,
    
    831 F.3d 1
    , 8-9 (1st Cir. 2016) (distinguishing between waived and
    forfeited      issues).       Reversal   may    occur   in    the    absence    of
    preservation at trial when "(1) . . . an error occurred (2) which
    was   clear    or   obvious    and   which     not   only    (3)    affected   the
    - 8 -
    defendant's substantial rights, but also (4) seriously impaired
    the    fairness,    integrity,   or    public   reputation      of   judicial
    proceedings."      United States v. Salley, 
    651 F.3d 159
    , 164 (1st
    Cir. 2011) (quoting United States v. Landry, 
    631 F.3d 597
    , 606
    (1st   Cir.     2011)).    "Plain     error   reversals   are    limited   to
    blockbuster errors and not ordinary backfires."              
    Id.
         Not only
    must the error be a blockbuster, but the prejudice must also be so
    substantial that it creates a "reasonable probability" that the
    outcome of the trial would have been different had it not occurred.
    United States v. Padilla, 
    415 F.3d 211
    , 221 (1st Cir. 2005)
    (quoting United States v. Dominguez Benitez, 
    542 U.S. 74
    , 82
    (2004)).
    In this case, except for the materiality argument raised
    at his motion for new trial, all of Mr. Chen's arguments on appeal
    were either waived or forfeited.        We discuss each below.
    1. Variance between the indictment and the proof, and
    the Sixth Amendment violation.
    At its heart, Mr. Chen's argument is that multiple
    circumstances may have caused the jury to convict him of the
    Friends Allegation instead of the Recall Allegation, essentially
    causing a mismatch – or variance – between the indictment and the
    proof.     He contends that both the trial judge and the prosecutor
    furthered this alleged error.         As a result, he argues, he did not
    receive adequate notice that the charge he had to defend against
    - 9 -
    concerned the Friends Allegation.        At trial, however, he raised
    neither the argument of variance nor of a Sixth Amendment "notice"
    violation, so plain error review is required.2         See United States
    v. Rodríguez-Milián, 
    820 F.3d 26
    , 32 (1st Cir. 2016) (reviewing
    for plain error where appellant did not raise variance issue in
    the district court).
    As to his Sixth Amendment claim, Mr. Chen received
    adequate notice of the conduct charged as criminal and so there
    was no error, plain or otherwise.         The indictment specifically
    alleged the knowing falsity of his statement that he "could not
    recall his options trading in [Vistaprint], when in fact CHEN then
    and there knew he had bought and sold options in [Vistaprint] as
    part of the insider trading scheme alleged herein."              Mr. Chen
    acknowledges in his brief that at various points the government
    stressed it was relying on that allegation to convict.          See, e.g.,
    Br. of Defendant-Appellant at 5-6, 11-12, 15, 17-19.           Indeed, the
    record   reflects   that.   That   the    government    also    introduced
    evidence of a second false statement does not detract from the
    notice Mr. Chen was indisputably given as to the Recall Allegation.
    2 We note that Mr. Chen's presentation to this Court is spare.
    He cites but one case in support of his eight-and-one-half page
    argument, United States v. Dowdell, 
    595 F.3d 50
     (1st Cir. 2010),
    a case which dealt with neither a variance nor a Sixth Amendment
    claim. Dowdell involved a "ministerial correction to a clerical
    error" in the indictment. 
    Id. at 66
    .
    - 10 -
    "Convictions may be reversed based on variance only upon
    a showing of prejudice to the defendant's substantial rights,"
    such as "when lack of notice regarding the charges deprives the
    defendant of his ability to prepare an effective defense and to
    avoid surprise at trial."       United States v. Soto-Beníquez, 
    356 F.3d 1
    , 27 (1st Cir. 2003); see also United States v. Tavares, 
    705 F.3d 4
    , 16–17 (1st Cir. 2013) (finding no plain error where there
    was no prejudicial variance).       As discussed above, Mr. Chen had
    ample notice that the government intended to introduce evidence of
    the Friends Allegation in addition to the Recall Allegation, and
    ample opportunity to request a jury instruction clarifying that
    count 4 was based on the Recall Allegation alone.
    Mr. Chen suggests that he has established prejudice
    because there was "evidentiary spillover" that could have led the
    jury to convict him of count 4 based on the Friends Allegation,
    even if it believed that he was telling the truth when he stated
    that he could not recall his options trading with Vistaprint.           But
    we have only recognized such spillover prejudice in cases involving
    multiple   conspiracies    and/or   multiple   defendants,    see   United
    States v. Flaherty, 
    668 F.2d 566
    , 582 (1st Cir. 2017), "so that in
    cases   with   multiple   defendants   proof   that   one   defendant   was
    involved in one conspiracy does not lead the jury to believe that
    another defendant was involved in a separate conspiracy."           United
    - 11 -
    States v. Tormos-Vega, 
    959 F.2d 1103
    , 1115 (1st Cir. 1992).             Mr.
    Chen points to no case in which we have applied this doctrine to
    find a prejudicial variance with respect to a false statement
    charge against a single defendant.            In short, we see no plain
    error.
    2. Alleged prosecutorial misconduct in the opening and
    closing statements.
    Mr.    Chen   complains     that   the   government's    opening
    statement recounted the evidence only of the falsity of the Friends
    Allegation, and that its failure to discuss the Recall Allegation
    was misconduct.      The judge had set a twenty-minute time limit for
    opening statements.      At the eighteen-minute point, she warned the
    prosecutor of the elapsed time.        At the point when the trial judge
    called "time," the prosecutor had just progressed in his chronology
    to the FBI’s going to Mr. Chen’s restaurant to talk to him.            Told
    to "wrap up," the prosecutor mentioned Mr. Chen’s "not close
    friends"   answer,    "[a]mong   other   things,"    made   one   concluding
    remark, and then sat down.       
    Id.
    The next day, Mr. Chen's counsel pointed out to the trial
    judge that the prosecutor failed to discuss the Recall Allegation
    in the opening statement and           indicated    her concern    that the
    government was planning to rely on the Friends Allegation to prove
    count 4.   The prosecutor confirmed that the government would rely
    on the Recall Allegation alone and explained that he did not
    - 12 -
    mention the Recall Allegation during his opening statement because
    he had run out of time.             Defense counsel replied, "with that
    clarification, we're fine."         We need not decide whether Mr. Chen's
    prosecutorial-misconduct objection was waived or forfeited through
    this colloquy with the trial judge.              Even assuming plain error
    review is available, Mr. Chen points to no case holding that a
    prosecutor committed misconduct by failing to mention certain
    evidence in an opening statement.           As such, Mr. Chen has not shown
    that the prosecutor committed "clear or obvious" misconduct and so
    cannot satisfy the second prong of the plain error standard.
    The specific complaint about the closing statement is
    hard to discern, but it seems to involve the government's statement
    that "[Chen] lied about many things," without reminding the jury
    that count 4 charged only falsity in the Recall Allegation. 3
    Nestled in this section of Mr. Chen's brief is an additional claim
    that       faults   the   trial   court   for   not    sua   sponte   giving   a
    "cautionary/clarifying" instruction.            Br. of Defendant-Appellant
    at 21.        We cannot find anything wrong with the prosecution's
    closing argument, much less misconduct.               The defense conceded at
    trial that the evidence was relevant to the insider trading counts
    and does so again in its Brief.           Br. of Defendant-Appellant at 17,
    Mr. Chen describes this as "[m]erging the one material
    3
    statement alleged in the Indictment with the other so-called
    uncharged lies." Br. of Defendant-Appellant at 20.
    - 13 -
    35-37.   Finding no clear prosecutorial misconduct, we can hardly
    fault the trial judge, as Mr. Chen does, for failing to sua sponte
    give a "clarifying" instruction.4
    3. The indictment not going to the jury and the verdict
    form.
    We combine these two claims of error because our analysis
    of them is the same.    Both claims were waived at trial.   Whether
    an indictment is given to the jury is within the sound discretion
    of the trial judge.    United States v. Medina, 
    761 F.2d 12
    , 21-22
    (1st Cir. 1985).   The failure to do so can hardly be termed error.
    Even more fatal to Mr. Chen's contention is yet again the fact
    that he not only did not object:    he affirmatively agreed.   The
    trial judge made clear her intention not to provide the indictment
    to the jurors, and on at least two occasions, Mr. Chen indicated
    4 We note that "the plain error hurdle, high in all events,
    nowhere looms larger than in the context of alleged instructional
    errors." United States v. Rivera-Carrasquillo, 
    933 F.2d 33
    , 49
    (1st Cir. 2019)(quoting United States v. Paniagua-Ramos, 
    251 F.3d 242
    , 246 (1st Cir. 2001)). Plain error will be found only for
    "glaring" mistakes, such as the failure to charge on the burden of
    proof. United States v. Paniagua-Ramos, 
    251 F.3d at 246
     (1st Cir.
    2001). At several points in the trial, the defense specifically
    approved the instructions given by the trial court.
    Mr. Chen does not appear to make a frontal assault on the
    trial court’s instructions to the jury on count 4. If he had, we
    would respond that the instruction given was one he and the
    government both proposed, he pointed out no problem with the
    instructions the trial judge proposed, and he made no objection at
    the close of the instructions.
    - 14 -
    his preference for precisely that decision.                   Having agreed to
    withhold the indictment from the jury, any challenge to that course
    of conduct was waived.         United States v. Morehead, 
    676 F. App'x 695
    , 696 (9th Cir. 2017) (finding that the defendant waived his
    right to have the indictment provided to the jury where he declined
    the judge's offer to read the indictment to the jury or provide
    them with a copy).
    In the same way, we reject Mr. Chen's challenge to the
    verdict form.     Not only did he not object to it, when asked if the
    verdict    form   was    acceptable    to   the    defense,    counsel   replied
    specifically, "We're fine with it."               He cannot change direction
    in this Court.          He has waived this issue.             United States v.
    Souffrant, 
    517 F. App'x 803
    , 718 (11th Cir. 2013) (finding that
    the defendant waived any objection to the verdict form by agreeing
    to it).
    4.    Motion for a new trial.
    Mr. Chen's appellate claim under Fed. R. Crim. P. 33 is
    unclear.      The   government    interprets        it   as   challenging    the
    sufficiency of the evidence on count 4.             Br. for United States at
    35.    While      Mr.   Chen   does    specifically      challenge   proof    of
    materiality with respect to the Recall Allegation, he mounts a
    broader challenge that he terms the trial court's "inexplicabl[e]
    acquiescenc[ence] to the government's unilateral transformation of
    - 15 -
    Count Four."       Br. of Defendant-Appellant at 37.                This is yet
    another way to repackage the complaints discussed above.               However,
    bringing these claims in a motion for a new trial does not relieve
    Mr. Chen of meeting the burden of plain error, as all but the
    materiality    issue     discussed     below      remain   unpreserved.      See
    Kinsella, 
    622 F.3d at 83
    .       We do not agree that the district court
    or the government "unilateral[ly] transform[ed]" count 4.
    With respect to materiality, while Mr. Chen maintains
    the   statement    had    to   be     one   that     in    fact   affected   the
    investigation, we agree with the government's assertion that it
    merely had to be of a type which would have a "natural tendency"
    to influence an investigation in the "abstract."                  United States
    v. Phillipos, 
    849 F.3d 464
    , 473 (1st Cir. 2017) (quoting United
    States v. Mehanna, 
    735 F.3d 32
    , 55 (1st Cir. 2013); accord Mehanna
    at 55 ("[W]here a defendant's statements are intended to misdirect
    government    investigators,        they    may    satisfy    the   materiality
    requirement of section 1001 even if they stand no chance of
    accomplishing their objective.").              Pretending to not recall the
    trades can be as material as admitting or denying having made them,
    as a jury could find that a feigned lack of memory was intended as
    a thinly veiled deception.           See, e.g., United States v. Sampson,
    
    898 F.3d 287
    , 307 (2d Cir. 2018)(holding that the evidence was
    sufficient    to   support     the     conclusion     that    the   defendant's
    - 16 -
    statement that he did not recall having seen a check register page
    was intended to deceive FBI agents).
    Finally, in his argument for a new trial, Mr. Chen
    included a claim that the indictment was "unclear." 5             Br. of
    Defendant-Appellant at 40.    He argued it is ambiguous as to whether
    it charges a false statement or merely a failure of memory.            He
    maintains   this   argument   only   by   omitting   language   from   the
    indictment in a way that is misleading.       He quotes the indictment
    as charging "that Chen ‘could not recall his options trading in
    VPRT, when in fact CHEN then and there knew he had bought and sold
    options in [Vistaprint] as part of the insider trading scheme
    alleged herein.'"    
    Id.
       Read that way, of course, it charges him
    with having a failure of memory.           But that is not what the
    5 Nestled in this argument in his brief, Mr. Chen appears to
    question, though obliquely, the sufficiency of the evidence that
    his claim not to remember options trading in Vistaprint was false.
    Br. of Defendant-Appellant at pp. 42-43.      We dispose of this
    argument, to the extent it is made, quickly.     In reviewing the
    sufficiency of the evidence, we draw all inferences in favor of
    the verdict. United States v. Morel, 
    885 F.3d 17
    , 22 (1st Cir.
    2018) (preserved sufficiency challenges are reviewed "taking the
    evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict.").      Here,
    Chen engaged in options trading over the course of two years no
    less than eight times, his profit was approximately $830,000, and
    the percentage of the Chen family retirement accounts that were
    invested in Vistaprint was considerable, particularly in
    comparison   to   Mr.  Chen's   other  investments.   Mr.   Chen's
    interpretation of this evidence is not the only one, and the jury
    could well have drawn a reasonable inference that his professed
    failure of memory was not true.
    - 17 -
    indictment recited.        Instead, with the language that Mr. Chen
    omitted placed in italics by us, the indictment charged that Mr.
    Chen
    did knowingly and willfully make a materially
    false, fictitious, and fraudulent statement
    and representation . . . by stating to Special
    Agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation
    that he could not recall his options trading
    in [Vistaprint], when in fact CHEN then and
    there knew he had bought and sold options in
    [Vistaprint] as part of the insider trading
    scheme alleged herein.
    The full language of the indictment leaves no doubt that Mr. Chen
    was    charged   with   making   a   false    statement   about    whether   he
    remembered options trading, not with having a faulty memory.
    There was nothing ambiguous about it, no error, and certainly no
    plain error.
    Although     Mr.     Chen   has    made    known      to   us    his
    dissatisfaction with several events at his trial, he did not make
    it clear to the district judge.          Indeed, he explicitly agreed to
    at least two of her decisions that he now claims as error and he
    failed to preserve all but one of the rest.           Subject to both waiver
    and the difficult standard of plain error, he has failed to make
    his appellate case.      Finding that Mr. Chen's arguments lack merit,
    we affirm.
    - 18 -