United States v. Benjamin Stanley, Rufus Paul Harris , 739 F.3d 633 ( 2014 )


Menu:
  •                Case: 12-11126        Date Filed: 01/06/2014      Page: 1 of 44
    [PUBLISH]
    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
    ________________________
    No. 12-11126
    ________________________
    D.C. Docket No. 1:09-cr-00406-TCB-JFK-2
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    BENJAMIN STANLEY,
    RUFUS PAUL HARRIS,
    Defendants - Appellants.
    ________________________
    Appeals from the United States District Court
    for the Northern District of Georgia
    ________________________
    (January 6, 2014)
    Before TJOFLAT and MARCUS, Circuit Judges, and VINSON, * District Judge.
    MARCUS, Circuit Judge:
    * Honorable C. Roger Vinson, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Florida,
    sitting by designation.
    Case: 12-11126     Date Filed: 01/06/2014    Page: 2 of 44
    Co-defendants Rufus Paul Harris and Benjamin Stanley appeal their
    securities fraud convictions and sentences stemming from their role in a “pump
    and dump” scheme, in which misrepresentations artificially boost a company’s
    stock price and allow insiders to sell inflated shares. Moments before Harris and
    his co-defendants were to present opening statements in their securities fraud trial,
    he moved to represent himself. After this wish was granted, and after the
    Government had rested its case, Harris fled from justice. Now Harris and co-
    defendant Stanley contend that the district court’s responses to Harris’s conduct
    violated their constitutional rights. Specifically, Harris claims that his Sixth
    Amendment rights were violated both because he did not validly waive his right to
    counsel and because his standby counsel was not permitted to represent him after
    he ran. However, the record as a whole establishes that Harris waived his right to
    counsel knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily. Moreover, in the face of this
    valid waiver, the district court did not err by refusing to allow counsel to represent
    an absconded Harris. Stanley argues, in turn, that the district court should have
    severed his case and declared a mistrial once Harris fled. But the district court,
    which issued a curative instruction to mitigate any perceived prejudice, did not
    abuse its discretion in refusing to grant severance and mistrial.
    Raising additional challenges to sentencing, Harris claims that the district
    court impermissibly considered his lack of remorse in violation of his Fifth
    2
    Case: 12-11126     Date Filed: 01/06/2014   Page: 3 of 44
    Amendment rights. But because the court at no point pressured Harris into
    foregoing his right to silence, it did not err by considering remorseless statements
    freely volunteered by Harris at the sentencing hearing. Finally, Stanley says that
    he should have received a minor role reduction and that his sixteen year sentence
    was unreasonable. However, the district court did not clearly err in finding that
    Stanley played more than a minor role in this massive fraud, and it did not abuse its
    considerable discretion because Stanley’s sentence was substantively reasonable.
    Because we are persuaded by none of their claims, we affirm the convictions and
    sentences of both defendants.
    I.
    A.
    On September 15, 2009, a federal grand jury in the Northern District of
    Georgia indicted Harris, Stanley, and Darryl Horton for securities fraud and
    conspiracy. A November 9, 2009, superseding indictment charged the three co-
    defendants with seven counts: conspiracy to commit securities fraud, in violation
    of 18 U.S.C. § 1349; a substantive securities fraud charge, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
    § 1348; and five counts of wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343. Harris was
    charged alone in an eighth count with false certification of a financial statement, in
    violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1350(c)(1).
    3
    Case: 12-11126     Date Filed: 01/06/2014   Page: 4 of 44
    At trial, the Government adduced these essential facts: Harris founded and
    served as Chief Executive Officer of Conversion Solutions Holdings Corporation
    (“CSHC”), a Delaware company operating out of Kennesaw, Georgia. Stanley,
    CSHC’s cofounder, served as Chief Operating Officer. The third co-defendant,
    Chief Financial Officer Horton, is not part of this appeal. Viewed most charitably,
    CSHC’s business model sought to fund small businesses that were frozen out of
    the mainstream credit market. CSHC traded publicly over the counter as a penny
    stock, and the company was required to file periodic reports with the SEC.
    Despite its officers’ rosy representations, for a “holdings corporation,”
    CSHC held very little. Harris and Stanley falsely represented that CSHC owned
    and maintained hundreds of millions of dollars in assets, including a “UCC
    Security Note” worth $310 million that CSHC had purchased for $40 million.
    Harris issued a series of press releases claiming that CSHC owned or controlled
    entire issuances of foreign sovereign bonds of Venezuela and Finland worth
    billions of dollars and paying tens of millions in annual interest. Several of these
    press releases named Stanley alongside Harris as a CSHC contact person. CSHC’s
    2006 10-K, filed with the SEC by Harris, claimed assets of $800 million, counting
    the foreign sovereign bonds and the “UCC Security Note,” along with income of
    nearly $20 million in interest from the bonds -- CSHC’s only income. Stanley and
    Harris signed a management representation letter in which they attested to the
    4
    Case: 12-11126     Date Filed: 01/06/2014     Page: 5 of 44
    accuracy of financial information provided to an outside auditor who prepared the
    financial statements attached to SEC filings. Both Stanley and Harris solicited
    individual investors and gave statements in radio interviews that confirmed
    ownership of the sovereign bonds and promoted the value of company stock.
    Investors testified that they relied on these misrepresentations when choosing to
    invest. All the while, CSHC had few (if any) real assets. The worthless “UCC
    Security Note” was not legitimate, and CSHC had not purchased it for $40 million.
    CSHC did not own or control the foreign bonds. The company never earned any
    revenue and was financed solely by $1.8 million in cash from investors, from
    which Harris and Stanley each drew more than $300,000 in salary.
    The co-defendants held significant equity in CSHC. Through much of
    September 2006, CSHC stock traded around one dollar per share. At the end of
    that month, as the misrepresentations in press releases and SEC filings took hold,
    the stock price tripled in forty-eight hours to over three dollars per share, and it
    remained artificially elevated for several weeks. With the “pump” in progress, the
    “dump” began. The co-defendants each transferred substantial amounts of stock to
    close family members who sold hundreds of thousands of shares at inflated prices.
    By the time the SEC filed suit and halted trading in CSHC on October 24, 2006,
    nearly 6,000 investors had lost an estimated $42 million.
    B.
    5
    Case: 12-11126    Date Filed: 01/06/2014   Page: 6 of 44
    On November 5, 2009, shortly after the co-defendants were indicted, the
    district court appointed attorney Howard Jay Manchel as Harris’s counsel.
    Manchel represented Harris in all pretrial proceedings. The record shows no
    previous request from Harris for pro se representation before trial began on May
    12, 2011. But after a jury was empaneled and the Government presented its
    opening statement, Manchel informed the court that Harris had expressed a desire
    to represent himself. The following exchange took place:
    Harris:        I can’t exactly think of the motion that needs to be filed,
    mandate, mandel [sic], to where I remove my -- I put a
    motion before the Court to remove my attorney and
    represent myself. Or can I represent myself and have
    him to advise me on technical paperwork and motions at
    this point?
    The Court: So, you want to represent yourself?
    Harris:        Again, can I represent myself and have him to advise me
    in technical matters and objections and stuff of that type?
    The Court: Mr. Manchel, how do you feel about serving as stand-by
    counsel?
    Manchel:       Judge, I don’t -- I’ll do what my client wants.
    The Court: All right. Your motion’s granted. You represent
    yourself and Mr. Manchel will serve as stand-by counsel.
    As long as you understand that this is a very important
    decision that you’re making and one that most lawyers
    would advise against and most people who have
    experience in this field would advise against, and that -- I
    assume that you do not have any significant legal
    experience or expertise. Am I right about that?
    6
    Case: 12-11126    Date Filed: 01/06/2014   Page: 7 of 44
    Harris:        That is true, Your Honor.
    The Court: Okay. The Court would advise you, sir, that you should
    proceed very cautiously before you -- before you decide
    to make this decision, but if you want to do this, you may
    -- you may do so. But you just have to understand that
    you have to live with the consequences of your decision,
    and that you have the right to have counsel at all times
    during this proceeding and you would be waiving that
    right, and that you have to tell me that you’re freely and
    voluntarily waiving it, understanding that you know you
    have that constitutional right. Is that the case?
    Harris:        Is having him as stand-by counsel waiving my right?
    The Court: Yes, you’re waiving your right to -- you’re representing
    yourself.
    Harris:        I understand that. But he’s going to be there to
    technically advise; right?
    The Court: He’ll be there to consult with you.
    Harris:        Right. Okay.       Thank you.     Yes, Your Honor.    I
    understand.
    The Court: If you have any technical questions that you feel you
    need his help in, he will assist you. But you will --
    Harris:        Yes, sir.
    The Court: It’s very different from him representing you in an
    ordinary capacity. You will be doing the lion’s share of
    the work in all likelihood, but you will be able to confer
    with him as you deem necessary.
    Harris:        Yes, sir. I understand --
    The Court: All right. I assume that you --
    7
    Case: 12-11126   Date Filed: 01/06/2014    Page: 8 of 44
    Harris:        -- that I’m waiving my right to counsel.
    The Court: Sir?
    Harris:        I said yes, sir, I understand that I’m waiving my right to
    counsel.
    The Court: All right, sir. So, will you be making an opening
    statement on behalf of yourself?
    Harris:        Yes, sir.
    The Court: All right. Let’s bring the jury back . . . .
    The Court also said: “And I just want to state on the record I think you’re
    making a huge mistake.” Harris responded: “Thank you. I would have been
    disappointed if you didn’t say that . . . .” Harris and counsel for the other
    defendants gave their opening statements.
    After opening statements had concluded, and less than two hours after the
    first exchange with Harris concerning waiver of his right to counsel, the trial judge
    engaged Harris again, this time in a deeper colloquy about self-representation.
    During the second set of questions, the court inquired if Harris was “in good
    physical health” (“Yes”); if he was “using any medication that might impair [his]
    judgment right now” (“No”); if he was “suffering from any physical or mental
    affliction or disease that might impair [his] judgment” (“No”); if he understood
    that he would “be required to comply with the rules of procedure and evidence
    during the trial even though [he was] not a lawyer” (“Yes”); if he was “making
    8
    Case: 12-11126     Date Filed: 01/06/2014    Page: 9 of 44
    [the] decision because anyone’s compelled [him] to or coerced [him] to” (“No”); if
    he was “aware, from talking to Mr. Manchel in preparation for this case, of
    whatever defenses there might be that you have” (“Yes”); and if he understood that
    the charges carried a maximum possible prison sentence of 160 years” and
    “hundreds of thousands of dollars, if not over a million dollars” in possible fines
    (“Yes”). When Harris asked, the court arranged for Manchel to provide him with
    copies of procedural and evidentiary rules. Harris’s answers during this second
    colloquy were generally straightforward, though he misunderstood the court’s first
    question concerning coercion, initially saying that he had been coerced, threatened,
    or forced “[f]or the past four and a half years,” by the fact “[t]hat we have a case,
    period,” because “my family and I went through living Cain and my name’s crap.”
    Trial continued, with Harris representing himself during the Government’s
    case-in-chief and a portion of the defendants’ case. Harris actively advocated in
    his own defense -- he invoked the rule of sequestration; made numerous
    evidentiary objections; examined witnesses; distinguished Government case law
    while arguing in response to a motion in limine; and argued a Rule 29 motion. As
    standby counsel, Manchel provided Harris with active support by, among other
    things, assisting with the preparation of witness subpoenas, addressing the court on
    Harris’s behalf in responding to objections, and drafting proposed jury instructions.
    9
    Case: 12-11126     Date Filed: 01/06/2014   Page: 10 of 44
    On May 24, 2011, after eight days of testimony and the completion of the
    Government’s case-in-chief, and with only the potential testimony of three defense
    witnesses and closing arguments remaining, Harris abandoned ship, absconding
    from the trial. The court dismissed the jury for the day and requested briefing as to
    the proper response to Harris’s absence. Manchel asked that he be allowed to
    represent Harris because he had played an active role as standby counsel. The
    court refused to appoint Manchel as counsel, finding that Harris had been “fully
    advised by the Court of the risks and dangers inherent in self-representation,” that
    Harris “indicated quite clearly and unambiguously that he wants to represent
    himself,” and that Harris nonetheless absconded.
    Co-defendants Stanley and Horton moved for a mistrial, claiming that the
    three defendants jointly had raised a good faith defense that was irreparably
    undermined by Harris’s flight. The district court refused to grant a mistrial, citing
    the expense and delay it would cause, the burden it would impose on the
    Government, witnesses, and victims, and the fact that the three defendants’
    interests “are not totally aligned.” The court further concluded that the
    Government could present testimony regarding Harris’s flight as evidence of his
    consciousness of guilt. The trial court agreed, however, to provide the jury with a
    cautionary instruction that this evidence could only be considered as to Harris, and
    that no adverse inference could be imputed against Stanley or Horton. Stanley and
    10
    Case: 12-11126      Date Filed: 01/06/2014    Page: 11 of 44
    Horton agreed to the proposed instruction. When trial resumed the next day, May
    25, 2011, the court instructed the jury that “no negative inference whatsoever
    should be drawn as to Defendants Horton and Stanley from Mr. Harris’ absence.”
    Before Harris absconded, he had called and examined three witnesses,
    though he had subpoenaed three more. On May 25, after counsel for Horton called
    two of the three remaining witnesses, the defense rested. The Government
    presented two rebuttal witnesses who testified that Harris had checked out of his
    hotel and could not be located. In their closing arguments, Stanley and Horton
    used Harris’s flight to distinguish their roles -- and culpability -- as far more
    limited. Stanley’s counsel argued that Harris and Stanley were not “joined at the
    hip”; that Harris controlled CSHC; and that, unlike Harris, “Mr. Stanley came here.
    He did not flee. He did not run. He says you know what, I’m innocent.” Horton’s
    counsel said Horton, who “didn’t attempt to flee,” was unlike Harris, “the man
    with the plan, the man who ran.”
    On May 26, 2011, the jury found Harris guilty of all eight counts. It found
    Stanley guilty of Counts 1, 2, 4, 5, and 7, but not guilty on Counts 3 and 6. The
    jury acquitted Horton on Counts 3, 4, and 5, and hung on the remaining counts.
    Horton entered a guilty plea on May 27 to a single-count information charging him
    with conspiracy to commit mail-fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1341. The
    district court dismissed the remaining counts against Horton.
    11
    Case: 12-11126    Date Filed: 01/06/2014    Page: 12 of 44
    After a nationwide manhunt, federal marshals apprehended Harris 2,000
    miles away, in Provo, Utah, on May 28, 2011. With Harris back, the district court
    held a sentencing hearing for all of the defendants on February 23, 2012. Manchel
    resumed his representation of Harris at sentencing. In addressing the court, Harris
    stated that he “was completely transparent,” that there was no “attempt to hide
    anything, because we did nothing wrong,” and, turning to his children, “you know
    I didn’t do this. So don’t you believe one word that these people are saying . . . .”
    Manchel noted that his client Harris was psychiatrically examined after trial and
    diagnosed with a personality disorder with narcissistic tendencies. The district
    court found that Harris was “clearly mentally competent.”
    Meanwhile, Stanley argued that his Sentencing Guidelines range should
    reflect a four-level “minimal role” reduction. The district court disagreed, finding
    that, although Stanley was not as culpable as Harris, he was “obviously not a
    minimal participant” for purposes of a 3B1.2 reduction. Still, the court noted that
    Stanley’s lower culpability “will be very relevant” and “will be accounted for” at
    sentencing.
    The district court observed that the Government had “conservatively
    concluded” that over 6,000 accounts lost money, with total losses exceeding $42
    12
    Case: 12-11126       Date Filed: 01/06/2014      Page: 13 of 44
    million. 1 See U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual §§ 2B1.1(b)(1)(K);
    2B1.1(b)(2)(C) (2011). For the purposes of Guidelines calculations, the parties
    stipulated to a loss amount between $7 million and $20 million. The court found
    that CSHC “had no operations whatsoever” and that Harris and Stanley “blatantly
    falsely lied” about CSHC. As the district court put it, this fact distinguished a
    crime of impulse from the fraud involved in this case, which evinced “this much
    aforethought, this much scheming, this much deliberation involved, the planning
    . . . at the expense of these innocent investors.” The court also credited trial
    evidence showing that Harris and Stanley had participated in a similar “pump and
    dump” scheme at Broadband Wireless.
    The district court calculated that Harris had an advisory Guidelines offense
    level of thirty-nine and a criminal history category of III, yielding a Guidelines
    range of 324 to 405 months. Harris argued for a below-Guidelines sentence,
    asserting that his criminal history category was exaggerated since it was drawn
    only from two DUI convictions and from the fact that he had been on probation
    during the securities offense. Ultimately, the district court sentenced Harris to 276
    months of imprisonment, five years of supervised release, restitution of
    1
    The Presentence Report stated 5,894 victim accounts were affected, far in excess of the 250
    victims relevant for the Sentencing Guidelines. See U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual §
    2B1.1(b)(2)(C) (2011).
    13
    Case: 12-11126     Date Filed: 01/06/2014   Page: 14 of 44
    $44,025,620 to be paid jointly and severally with his co-defendants, and a special
    assessment of $800.
    As for co-defendant Stanley, the district court found that his base offense
    level began at seven. 
    Id. § 2B1.1(a)(1).
    Twenty levels were added because of the
    stipulated loss between $7 million and $20 million. 
    Id. § 2B1.1(b)(1)(K).
    Six
    levels were added because the offense involved 250 or more victims. 
    Id. § 2B1.1(b)(2)(C).
    Four more levels were added because the offense involved a
    violation of securities law when the defendant was an officer of a publicly traded
    company. 
    Id. § 2B1.1(b)(18)(A).
    As a result, Stanley’s offense level was thirty-
    seven. He had no criminal history points and a criminal history category of I,
    yielding a range between 210 and 262 months of incarceration.
    Stanley presented four character witnesses and personally addressed the
    court at sentencing, insisting that he had been unaware of the fraudulent activity
    and had not intended to defraud anyone. The district court sentenced Stanley to
    imprisonment for 192 months, five years of supervised release, joint and several
    restitution, and a special assessment of $500.
    Just before pronouncing these sentences, the trial court observed that it had
    carefully considered the § 3553(a) factors, and added that it was “particularly
    disturbed by the amount of the loss and by the recalcitrance or at least the
    transigence of the defendants Harris and Stanley. They are adamant in their
    14
    Case: 12-11126     Date Filed: 01/06/2014    Page: 15 of 44
    insistence that they have done nothing wrong.” After hearing his client’s sentence,
    counsel for Harris stated, “I guess I really object to the Court’s great emphasis in
    this sentence on my client’s failure to what I see repent before this Court.” The
    Court responded:
    I am just making the point that he is not repentant. Listen, I want the
    record to reflect that is just a factor, and I use the indefinite article
    specifically it is “a” factor. Not “the” factor, it is one of many factors.
    And I don’t want anything that I have said to be misconstrued as over-
    emphasizing that point because I am really not. The biggest factor,
    frankly, to the Court, is that the crime was willfully committed, the
    Defendants were all convicted by a jury, and the amount of the loss is
    enormous. Those are the most important factors the Court, and they
    all drive 3553(a) for me.
    The Court continued: “I am not trying to hide anything. I have no reservation
    whatsoever about pointing out that I am disturbed by the fact that this man
    continues to insist that he did nothing wrong. I have a problem with that, but that
    is not why I am sentencing him to 23 years in prison, okay?” Stanley’s counsel
    also objected to the consideration of lack of remorse.
    Harris and Stanley filed timely notices of appeal. We have jurisdiction
    pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3742 and 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
    II.
    A.
    First, Harris claims that his waiver of the right to counsel at trial was invalid
    from the outset and that the district court erred in allowing him to represent
    15
    Case: 12-11126        Date Filed: 01/06/2014       Page: 16 of 44
    himself. We review de novo whether a defendant validly waived the right to
    counsel as a mixed question of law and fact. United States v. Garey, 
    540 F.3d 1253
    , 1268 (11th Cir. 2008) (en banc). On direct appeal, the Government bears the
    burden of proving a valid waiver. United States v. Cash, 
    47 F.3d 1083
    , 1088 (11th
    Cir. 1995). If the Government cannot meet this burden, the defendant need not
    show prejudice to obtain a reversal. See 
    id. at 1090
    n.5; United States v. Fant, 
    890 F.2d 408
    , 410 (11th Cir. 1989).
    The Government argues, though, that Harris’s failure to challenge the
    validity of his waiver in the district court makes plain error review appropriate. No
    published case in this Circuit explicitly addresses the question, though the mine run
    of cases apply de novo review without discussing whether a defendant formally
    objected at trial. See, e.g., United States v. Evans, 
    478 F.3d 1332
    , 1340 (11th Cir.
    2007); 
    Cash, 47 F.3d at 1088
    . However, one unpublished opinion cited by the
    Government applied plain error review in this context. See United States v. Talley,
    315 F. App’x 134, 136 (11th Cir. 2008) (per curiam) (unpublished). 2
    2
    Approaches to this question differ across, and even within, other circuits. See, e.g., United
    States v. Bernard, 
    708 F.3d 583
    , 588 n.7 (4th Cir. 2013) (“[Because] defense counsel ‘bears
    substantial responsibility’ for allowing the alleged error to pass without objection . . . [we]
    conclude that, at a minimum, his failure to preserve the claim of invalid waiver warrants plain
    error review.”); 
    id. at 596
    (Diaz, J., dissenting) (“[W]hen a defendant requests to proceed pro se
    at a competency hearing, he has sufficiently put his competency at issue to preserve a claim of
    invalid waiver of counsel.” (footnote omitted)); United States v. McBride, 
    362 F.3d 360
    , 365
    (6th Cir. 2004) (“In this circuit . . . two trends have developed. We have on occasion applied
    ‘plain error’ review to examine the validity of a defendant’s waiver of counsel. Other panels
    have approached the waiver-of-counsel issue by omitting discussion of the standard of review
    16
    Case: 12-11126       Date Filed: 01/06/2014       Page: 17 of 44
    The appropriate standard of review thus presents an unsettled question. On
    the one hand, a defendant’s motion to represent himself could be seen as
    effectively placing the validity of the waiver before the court. Moreover, a
    defendant would undermine his chance of success in a Faretta hearing by second-
    guessing his own motion. On the other, plain error review may be appropriate,
    especially here because Manchel represented Harris at the sentencing hearing,
    where he easily could have challenged Harris’s previous waiver before the district
    court. Regardless, we need not and do not decide this question because Harris’s
    argument fails when measured under either standard. For that reason, we examine
    his claim de novo.
    B.
    In Faretta v. California, 
    422 U.S. 806
    , 834 (1975), the Supreme Court
    recognized that a defendant may exercise a right to self-representation by making a
    knowing and voluntary waiver of the right to counsel. “The ideal method of
    assuring a voluntary waiver is for the trial judge to conduct a pre-trial hearing at
    and proceeding to engage in a thorough review of the colloquy between the district court judge
    and the defendant.” (citations omitted)); United States v. Erskine, 
    355 F.3d 1161
    , 1166-67 (9th
    Cir. 2004) (“Our requirements for reviewing the validity of a Faretta waiver are predicated on the
    fact that we do not expect pro se defendants to know the perils of self-representation, and
    consequently, we cannot expect defendants to recognize that they have not been correctly and
    fully advised, let alone to point out the court’s errors. Accordingly, plain error review would be
    inappropriate, and we instead perform the simple de novo review in which we have customarily
    engaged.”).
    17
    Case: 12-11126      Date Filed: 01/06/2014   Page: 18 of 44
    which the defendant would be informed of the charges, basic trial procedures, and
    the hazards of self-representation.” Strozier v. Newsome, 
    926 F.2d 1100
    , 1104
    (11th Cir. 1991). However, “[w]hile a pretrial hearing is preferred, it is not
    required.” 
    Cash, 47 F.3d at 1088
    . “The hearing . . . is a means to the end, namely
    ensuring a voluntary and intelligent waiver.” Strozier v. Newsome, 
    871 F.2d 995
    ,
    998 (11th Cir. 1989). The failure to hold a Faretta hearing “is not error as a matter
    of law. If the trial record shows that a defendant knowingly and voluntarily elected
    to represent himself, the Faretta standard will be satisfied.” Nelson v. Alabama,
    
    292 F.3d 1291
    , 1295 (11th Cir. 2002). “As long as the record establishes that the
    defendant understood the risks of self-representation and freely chose to face them,
    the waiver may be valid.” 
    Strozier, 926 F.2d at 1105
    . “The ultimate test is not the
    trial court’s express advice, but rather the defendant’s understanding.” Fitzpatrick
    v. Wainwright, 
    800 F.2d 1057
    , 1065 (11th Cir. 1986).
    Fitzpatrick elaborated eight factors for consideration in determining whether
    a defendant executed a knowing and voluntary waiver of the right to counsel:
    (1) the defendant’s age, educational background, and physical and mental health;
    (2) the extent of the defendant’s contact with lawyers prior to trial; (3) the
    defendant’s knowledge of the nature of the charges, possible defenses, and
    penalties; (4) the defendant’s understanding of rules of procedure, evidence and
    courtroom decorum; (5) the defendant’s experience in criminal trials; (6) whether
    18
    Case: 12-11126      Date Filed: 01/06/2014    Page: 19 of 44
    standby counsel was appointed, and the extent to which that counsel aided
    defendant; (7) mistreatment or coercion of the defendant; and (8) whether the
    defendant was trying to manipulate the events of the 
    trial. 800 F.2d at 1065-67
    .
    In this case, the district court did not initially conduct an adequate Faretta
    inquiry before it allowed Harris to represent himself during his opening statement.
    When Harris first announced his intention to proceed pro se, the district court
    noted that it was “a very important decision,” requested that Harris’s former
    attorney serve as standby counsel, confirmed that Harris had no “significant legal
    experience or expertise,” and asked Harris whether he was “freely and voluntarily
    waiving” his “right to have counsel at all times during this proceeding.” The
    inquiry fell well short of covering all, or even most, of the Fitzpatrick factors. It
    did not inquire into the defendant’s health; did not probe Harris’s understanding of
    the nature of the charges, defenses, and penalties; did not assess his grasp of court
    rules or procedures; and did not look for mistreatment or coercion motivating
    Harris’s decision.
    A defendant’s waiver must be knowing and voluntary at the time pro se
    representation is first permitted: the fact that a defendant later became aware of the
    consequences of his decision may not cure a waiver that was initially unknowing.
    
    Evans, 478 F.3d at 1340
    (“Before the court grants the defendant’s request, the
    court must make the defendant ‘aware of the dangers and disadvantages of self-
    19
    Case: 12-11126     Date Filed: 01/06/2014    Page: 20 of 44
    representation, so that the record will establish that he knows what he is doing and
    his decision is made with his eyes open.’” (quoting 
    Faretta, 422 U.S. at 835
    )).
    Nevertheless, we may look to subsequent events during a trial as evidence of what
    would have been true when a defendant first waived his rights. See 
    Fitzpatrick, 800 F.2d at 1065
    (“If the trial record demonstrates that [the defendant’s] decision
    to represent himself was made with an understanding of the risks of self-
    representation, the knowing, intelligent, and voluntary waiver standard of the Sixth
    Amendment will be satisfied.”). Thus, we consider how ably a pro se defendant
    performed in presenting his case as evidence of his understanding of rules of
    procedure, evidence, and courtroom decorum. And the extent of standby counsel’s
    aid to a defendant can only be measured after the fact.
    Notably, however, after Harris gave his opening statement, on round two the
    district court expansively addressed many of the Fitzpatrick factors. Moreover, the
    two colloquies occurred on the same day, the first of trial, less than two hours
    apart. We have no reason to believe that the defendant gave different answers
    during the latter exchange than he would have, if asked, in the initial conversation.
    Harris’s consistent, repeated responses to a far more searching inquiry left no
    doubt that he intended to proceed pro se, despite well knowing what he was getting
    himself into. While we may not simply presume that Harris initially knew all of
    the information delivered during the second colloquy, we can look to the whole
    20
    Case: 12-11126      Date Filed: 01/06/2014    Page: 21 of 44
    record for evidence of whether Harris’s waiver was knowing and voluntary and
    therefore valid when initially made. Measured against the Fitzpatrick factors, the
    record -- including Harris’s behavior during the second colloquy -- fairly
    establishes that he originally made a knowing, intelligent waiver “with eyes open.”
    
    Faretta, 422 U.S. at 835
    (quoting Adams v. United States ex rel. McCann, 
    317 U.S. 269
    , 279 (1942)).
    1. Age, education, and health
    At trial, Harris was a forty-three-year-old high school graduate. The district
    court found the former CSHC CEO to be “a very bright man” who had been
    responsible for his company’s SEC filings. See 
    Fitzpatrick, 800 F.2d at 1066
    (“Especially relevant to [Defendant’s] understanding of the risks of self-
    representation with respect to the securities charges is the fact that he is an
    experienced stockbroker.”); see also United States v. Kimball, 
    291 F.3d 726
    , 731
    (11th Cir. 2002) (finding waiver from a defendant with an eleventh-grade
    education to be valid when he was a “sophisticated businessman”). During the
    second inquiry, Harris confirmed that he was in good physical health, that he was
    not using any medication that might impair his judgment, and that he did not suffer
    from any relevant physical or mental condition.
    Harris now points out, however, that a presentencing evaluation diagnosed
    him with a personality disorder with narcissistic issues. Therefore, his argument
    21
    Case: 12-11126      Date Filed: 01/06/2014   Page: 22 of 44
    goes, he was disposed to overestimate his abilities and could not accurately assess
    the waiver decision, even though the district court found that Harris was “clearly”
    legally competent.
    Two Eleventh Circuit cases have reached different conclusions concerning
    defendants with narcissistic personality disorders who attempted to represent
    themselves. In United States v. McKenzie, 160 F. App’x 821, 827 (11th Cir. 2005)
    (unpublished), the Court found that the defendant was competent to waive counsel
    despite a post-trial diagnosis when he “was well aware of the risks posed by self-
    representation.” In Cash, by contrast, a panel of this Court found after a pre-trial
    diagnosis as part of a competency evaluation that, “considering the inadequacy of
    the district court’s colloquy with Appellant,” the Appellant’s mental problems
    tipped the balance in favor of finding that the waiver of counsel was neither
    knowing, voluntary, or 
    intelligent. 47 F.3d at 1089
    . Here, unlike in Cash, the
    defendant had not previously been declared incompetent before trial, and the Cash
    diagnosis called the defendant’s legal judgment into serious doubt. McKenzie,
    which featured a post-trial, pre-sentence diagnosis like that received by Harris,
    more closely resembles this case. And, of course, each case of waiver will turn
    peculiarly on its own set of facts.
    Indeed concluding otherwise, and restricting Harris’s right to waive counsel
    simply because of a post-trial diagnosis of antisocial personality, would undermine
    22
    Case: 12-11126     Date Filed: 01/06/2014    Page: 23 of 44
    the theory of informed free choice at the heart of Faretta. The Supreme Court has
    instructed us that the Sixth Amendment requires courts to respect the wishes of a
    defendant who is “literate, competent, and understanding,” and who is “voluntarily
    exercising his informed free will.” 
    Faretta, 422 U.S. at 835
    -36. “It is the
    defendant . . . who must be free personally to decide whether in his particular case
    counsel is to his advantage.” 
    Id. at 834.
    Despite the post-trial diagnosis, the first
    Fitzpatrick factor weighs in favor of finding a voluntary waiver by Harris -- a
    healthy, intelligent, middle-aged businessman well-versed in the securities field.
    2. Contact with lawyers prior to trial
    As the district court had reason to know, attorney Manchel represented
    Harris up until the pro se motion on the first day of trial, from November 5, 2009,
    until May 12, 2011. This representation likely exposed Harris to the complexity of
    his case and the legal process. See 
    Fitzpatrick, 800 F.2d at 1066
    . In Fitzpatrick,
    this factor favored a valid waiver when a defendant “had significant contact” with
    an attorney before trial, even though he never actually retained counsel. 
    Id. (“Through this
    contact, [Defendant] must have recognized that his case was more
    complex than he originally thought.”). Because of Harris’s lengthy pre-trial
    relationship with his court-appointed attorney, this factor weighs in favor of a valid
    waiver.
    3. Knowledge of the nature of the charges, possible defenses, and penalties
    23
    Case: 12-11126     Date Filed: 01/06/2014   Page: 24 of 44
    When he moved to represent himself, Harris was abundantly aware of the
    seriousness and complexity of the charges, which were part of a prosecution that
    had engulfed nearly four years of his life. Harris’s business background, including
    his prior involvement in a similar scheme, exposed him to the complexity of a
    securities fraud case. In fact, Harris had just heard the Government’s opening
    statement, which laid out the nature of the charges against him. And during the
    court’s second colloquy concerning Harris’s decision to represent himself, Harris
    indicated that the charges had severely impacted his life “[f]or the past four and a
    half years,” because “my family and I went through living Cain and my name’s
    crap.” During that exchange, the court also expressly informed Harris that he
    faced a maximum of 160 years in prison and could be forced to pay millions of
    dollars. Harris showed no surprise at hearing the severity of the charges, and in no
    way indicated that the possible penalties undermined his decision to continue pro
    se. His ultimate decision to abscond during the twilight of the trial also strongly
    suggests that Harris was well aware of the consequences he faced. Because the
    record amply shows Harris was aware of the seriousness and complexity of the
    charges, this factor also indicates a valid waiver.
    4. Understanding of rules of procedure, evidence and courtroom decorum
    Harris appears to have had a limited legal background, but the district court
    granted his request that attorney Manchel be made available as standby counsel for
    24
    Case: 12-11126     Date Filed: 01/06/2014    Page: 25 of 44
    technical and procedural questions. “[T]echnical legal knowledge . . . [is] not
    relevant to an assessment of [a defendant’s] knowing exercise of the right to
    defend himself.” 
    Faretta, 422 U.S. at 835
    . Instead, the fourth factor favors a valid
    waiver when a defendant “understood that rules do exist to govern the procedure of
    a trial, the introduction of evidence and the behavior of advocates and . . . that he
    would be bound by those rules.” 
    Kimball, 291 F.3d at 731
    . By all accounts, Harris
    acquitted himself well as an advocate during trial -- like in Fitzpatrick, “he
    generally knew how to handle himself in 
    court.” 800 F.2d at 1067
    . Harris made
    evidentiary objections, examined witnesses, distinguished Government case law,
    invoked the rule of sequestration, and argued motions, including a motion in limine
    and a Rule 29 motion. All indications are that Harris, with Mandel’s assistance,
    performed adequately at trial, which also suggests a valid waiver.
    5. Experience in criminal trials
    Harris had no criminal trial experience. While this weighs against
    recognizing a waiver as valid, it is far from dispositive, as a number of cases in this
    Circuit have held a waiver to be knowing and voluntary in the absence of past trial
    history. See Jones v. Walker, 
    540 F.3d 1277
    , 1295 (11th Cir. 2008); 
    Fitzpatrick, 800 F.2d at 1067
    . “All factors need not point in the same direction.” 
    Cash, 47 F.3d at 1089
    .
    6. Appointment of and assistance from standby counsel
    25
    Case: 12-11126     Date Filed: 01/06/2014    Page: 26 of 44
    After representing the defendant in this very case for an extended period of
    time, Manchel served as standby counsel and assisted with technical legal issues
    and procedural matters throughout the trial. Indeed, Harris admits that Manchel
    “had taken an active role as standby counsel, including making objections for Mr.
    Harris, submitting charges on his behalf, procuring and interviewing witnesses,
    asking for bench warrants, and interceding with the court.” Appellant Harris’s Br.
    22-23. Manchel’s availability and performance as standby counsel weighs in favor
    of voluntariness.
    7. Mistreatment or coercion
    Harris does not argue that he was subject to any coercion or mistreatment in
    waiving his right to counsel.
    8. Efforts to manipulate the events of the trial
    Finally, and especially important in this case, Harris attempted to delay and
    manipulate the trial proceedings, making clear that he understood the palpable
    risks he faced. See 
    Fitzpatrick, 800 F.2d at 1067
    (“[Defendant] manipulated the
    proceedings, the trial court and his numerous attorneys in an attempt to delay as
    long as possible having to answer the charges against him.”). Harris waited until
    the day of trial, and until after the jury had already heard the prosecutor’s opening
    statement, to broach the topic of pro se representation. But his most glaring effort
    at manipulation was his flight to Utah -- after the Government had rested its case-
    26
    Case: 12-11126      Date Filed: 01/06/2014      Page: 27 of 44
    in-chief and notably after his Rule 29 motion had been denied -- which delayed
    trial for a day and generated many of the grounds for this appeal.
    Seven out of the eight Fitzpatrick factors -- all except Harris’s criminal trial
    experience -- strongly suggest his waiver was knowing and intelligent. Though the
    question is rendered somewhat more difficult by the delayed colloquy, after
    reviewing the entire record we are confident and hold that the district court did not
    violate Harris’s right to counsel by allowing him to represent himself. 3
    III.
    Harris also argues that the district court erred by refusing to permit his
    standby counsel to represent him at trial after Harris absconded. We review de
    novo Harris’s claim that his Sixth Amendment rights were violated. See United
    States v. Ignasiak, 
    667 F.3d 1217
    , 1227 (11th Cir. 2012); United States v. Yates,
    
    438 F.3d 1307
    , 1311 (11th Cir. 2006). In the face of Harris’s knowing and
    intelligent Sixth Amendment waiver, the district court did not violate Harris’s right
    to counsel by refusing to allow standby counsel to represent the runaway Harris
    during the final days of the trial.
    Defendants who are not present at trial -- even those who flee from justice --
    retain the right to counsel. Golden v. Newsome, 
    755 F.2d 1478
    , 1482 (11th Cir.
    3
    Out of an abundance of caution, we granted Harris’s December 23, 2013, motion to supplement
    the record. After thorough review, we find that none of the supplemental materials in any way
    alter our determination that Harris’s waiver was knowing, voluntary, and intelligent.
    27
    Case: 12-11126      Date Filed: 01/06/2014    Page: 28 of 44
    1985) (“[A] defendant’s escape . . . tells us very little about his intent to forego the
    right to be represented by counsel and to have effective assistance of counsel.”).
    But defendants also have the right to waive counsel, and to be free from counsel
    imposed on them against their will. “Unless the accused has acquiesced” in
    representation by counsel, “the defense presented is not the defense guaranteed
    him by the Constitution, for, in a very real sense, it is not his defense.” 
    Faretta, 422 U.S. at 821
    . As the Supreme Court has explained, “the core of the Faretta
    right” is that “the pro se defendant is entitled to preserve actual control over the
    case he chooses to present to the jury.” McKaskle v. Wiggins, 
    465 U.S. 168
    , 178
    (1984).
    We have not previously considered whether counsel must be appointed in a
    defendant’s absence when the defendant has waived both the right to counsel and
    then the right to be present at trial. In Clark v. Perez, 
    510 F.3d 382
    (2d Cir. 2008),
    the Second Circuit dealt with a case involving a defendant who waived her right to
    counsel and thereafter voluntarily absented herself as an act of political protest.
    The Second Circuit found that, “[i]f she faced trial without advantages guaranteed
    by the Sixth Amendment, that was not by the trial judge’s imposition, but by her
    own informed choice, which the trial judge was bound to respect.” 
    Id. at 397.
    Quite simply, Harris cannot show on this record that he rescinded his waiver
    of the right to counsel by absconding. With no other clues, his flight alone does
    28
    Case: 12-11126     Date Filed: 01/06/2014    Page: 29 of 44
    not indicate unambiguously a desire to revoke his valid Sixth Amendment waiver
    and reinstate Manchel as counsel of record. Harris instead argues that the district
    court should have terminated his self-representation because he deliberately
    engaged in serious and obstructionist misconduct. When pro se criminal
    defendants have been removed from a courtroom because of disruptive behavior,
    standby counselors have been permitted to step in. Illinois v. Allen, 
    397 U.S. 337
    (1970); see also United States v. Cork, No. 1:07-CR-183-WSD, 
    2008 WL 622822
    ,
    at *3 (N.D. Ga. Mar. 4, 2008). As a result, Harris insists that the district court
    could have allowed Manchel to serve in Harris’s absence. See Lefevre v. Cain,
    
    586 F.3d 349
    , 356 (5th Cir. 2009) (“McCaskle . . . requires that standby counsel’s
    participation be ‘over the defendant’s objection’ in order to erode the defendant’s
    Faretta rights.”). But in this case we are not confronted with the question, and thus
    need not decide, whether the Sixth Amendment would have allowed the district
    court to permit standby counsel to represent an absconded Harris. Harris cannot
    show that the Sixth Amendment required the court to permit standby counsel to
    take over. And we have little doubt that if the district court had permitted Manchel
    to pick up the representation of Harris after his flight, we would be confronted with
    the argument that the district court had improvidently and without any record
    support overruled Harris’s earlier unambiguous desire for self-representation.
    29
    Case: 12-11126     Date Filed: 01/06/2014    Page: 30 of 44
    Moreover, Harris ignores that his own decision to flee made it impossible for
    the trial to continue “in like manner and with like effect as if he were present.”
    Taylor v. United States, 
    414 U.S. 17
    , 19 (1973) (per curiam). With or without
    standby counsel, the trial could not continue as before once pro se Harris
    absconded. Though Harris originally requested that Manchel serve as standby
    counsel, he also made clear that he intended to set his own course. Harris cannot
    now invoke a constitutional entitlement to the very counsel he knowingly and
    voluntarily rejected, solely because he bolted before the last day of trial.
    IV.
    Co-defendant Stanley argues that the district court should have severed his
    case from Harris’s and declared a mistrial after Harris absconded. Stanley asserts
    that, when Harris ran, Harris’s good faith came into serious question, as did
    Stanley’s simply by association. We are unpersuaded.
    “A district court’s denial of a motion for severance is reversible only for
    abuse of discretion, and we have explicitly noted that appellate courts are generally
    reluctant to second guess a district court’s decision on severance.” United States v.
    Baker, 
    432 F.3d 1189
    , 1236 (11th Cir. 2005). We also review the denial of a
    motion for new trial for abuse of discretion. United States v. Campa, 
    459 F.3d 1121
    , 1151 (11th Cir. 2006) (en banc). To show an abuse of discretion in the
    denial of severance, Stanley must show “specific and compelling prejudice”
    30
    Case: 12-11126      Date Filed: 01/06/2014    Page: 31 of 44
    resulting in “fundamental unfairness.” 
    Baker, 432 F.3d at 1236
    . Here there was
    neither, particularly in light of the court’s curative instruction. The district court
    addressed possible prejudice by instructing the jury that “no negative inference
    whatsoever should be drawn as to Defendants Horton and Stanley from Mr. Harris’
    absence.” See United States v. Carrazana, 
    921 F.2d 1557
    , 1568 (11th Cir. 1991);
    see also Murr v. United States, 
    200 F.3d 895
    , 904 (6th Cir. 2000); United States v.
    Rullan-Rivera, 
    60 F.3d 16
    , 20 (1st Cir. 1995).
    Stanley’s lone rejoinder is that he had hitched his star to Harris’s through his
    good faith defense, and that Harris’s flight -- and evident consciousness of guilt --
    incurably tainted the jurors against the entire group. This story does not fit the
    facts surrounding the jury verdict, which discerned varying degrees of culpability
    among the co-defendants. Harris was convicted on all eight counts he faced;
    Stanley was convicted on five but acquitted on two; and Horton was acquitted on
    three with the jury hung on the remainder. While this result does not categorically
    prove the absence of a taint, it strongly suggests the jury thought critically and
    individually about the evidence of each defendant’s culpability. Stanley offers no
    reason to believe the jury misunderstood or disregarded the district court’s curative
    instruction. See United States v. Stone, 
    9 F.3d 934
    , 938 (11th Cir. 1993) (“Few
    tenets are more fundamental to our jury trial system than the presumption that
    juries obey the court’s instructions.”). “We have no reason to believe that the jury
    31
    Case: 12-11126     Date Filed: 01/06/2014    Page: 32 of 44
    in this case was incapable of obeying the curative instructions.” Greer v. Miller,
    
    483 U.S. 756
    , 766 n.8 (1987). The court acted well within its considerable
    discretion in proceeding with the joint trial when its instruction mitigated possible
    prejudice to Stanley’s good faith defense.
    This case is far from United States v. Tarango, 
    396 F.3d 666
    (5th Cir. 2005),
    the only precedent cited by Stanley on this issue. In Tarango, Patel (a doctor) and
    Tarango (his office manager) were charged with health care fraud. Patel
    absconded after the jury was selected but before trial began. The district court
    allowed the joint trial to proceed with only Tarango present, even though a
    disproportionate number of witnesses testified only against the missing doctor, not
    the present office manager. After the jury found Tarango guilty, the judge ordered
    a new trial based on the failure to sever, and the Fifth Circuit affirmed. 
    Id. at 668.
    The procedural stance and the facts in Tarango stand in sharp contrast to the
    present case. Tarango found that the district court did not abuse its discretion in
    ordering a retrial; here, Stanley must make the more difficult showing that the
    district court did abuse its discretion. 
    Id. at 675.
    Moreover, in Tarango, Patel
    missed the entire trial, and there “was little witness testimony that Tarango had
    engaged in wrongdoing.” 
    Id. at 670
    n.7. Here, Harris actively participated in the
    first eight days of trial, and many witnesses established Stanley’s heavy
    involvement in the fraud. The district court did not abuse its discretion.
    32
    Case: 12-11126     Date Filed: 01/06/2014    Page: 33 of 44
    Stanley also claims that he was prejudiced by the district court’s refusal to
    allow Harris’s standby counsel to present a closing argument. He cites no case law
    indicating that a defendant, whose counsel gave a closing argument, is or could be
    unfairly prejudiced when a co-defendant does not present a closing. If anything,
    Stanley’s counsel took advantage of Harris’s silence during closing by attempting
    to pin the entire scheme on the absent CEO.
    V.
    Finally, Harris argues that, by factoring in his lack of remorse during
    allocution, the district court held Harris’s exercise of his Fifth Amendment
    privilege against self-incrimination against him. We review de novo whether the
    district court’s consideration of a sentencing factor, such as Harris’s lack of
    remorse, is impermissible. United States v. Clay, 
    483 F.3d 739
    , 743 (11th Cir.
    2007). However, a sentence will only be unreasonable in this context if it was
    “substantially affected by the consideration of impermissible factors.” 
    Id. at 745.
    Harris’s argument confuses the nature of the Fifth Amendment privilege.
    During sentencing, a court “may not weigh the exercise of [Fifth Amendment]
    rights against the defendant.” United States v. Rodriguez, 
    959 F.2d 193
    , 197 (11th
    Cir. 1992) (per curiam). But a court may take into account a defendant’s freely
    offered statements indicating a lack of remorse. See 
    id. (“The sentencing
    court is
    justified in considering the defendant’s conduct prior to, during, and after the trial
    33
    Case: 12-11126    Date Filed: 01/06/2014    Page: 34 of 44
    to determine if the defendant has shown any remorse through his actions or
    statements.”); cf. United States v. Barrington, 
    648 F.3d 1178
    , 1197 (11th Cir.
    2011), cert. denied, 
    123 S. Ct. 1066
    (2012); United States v. Hill, 
    643 F.3d 807
    ,
    882-83 (11th Cir. 2011), cert. denied, 
    132 S. Ct. 1988
    (2012); United States v.
    Mateos, 
    623 F.3d 1350
    , 1367 (11th Cir. 2010). Just as a jury weighs a defendant’s
    testimony once he waives his Fifth Amendment privilege at trial, a judge may
    consider a defendant’s freely offered allocution regarding remorse during
    sentencing.
    Harris chose to allocute at his sentencing hearing without pressure from the
    court. In the face of the substantial evidence presented at trial and the jury’s
    verdict, Harris repeatedly denied any wrongdoing, insisting that “[t]his elaborate
    story is not what happened . . . . I was completely transparent.” “I didn’t steal no
    money from nobody.” He imagined that “[t]he jury convicted me because I got
    scared and I fled, I panicked. That’s the only reason.” Finally, he implored the
    court, “[y]our Honor, I am not this person y’all are making me out to be. I don’t
    do fraud. Never have. Never will. I don’t take money from people. I am just not
    that person.” At no point did the court indicate that his silence would have been
    held against him.
    34
    Case: 12-11126       Date Filed: 01/06/2014      Page: 35 of 44
    With these facts, the two principal cases relied on by Stanley are inapposite.
    In Rodriguez and Thomas v. United States, 
    368 F.2d 941
    (5th Cir. 1966),4 district
    courts conditioned the grant of a lower sentence on the defendants’ waiver of Fifth
    Amendment rights. See 
    Rodriguez, 959 F.2d at 197
    (vacating sentences when the
    trial court “balanced the Appellants’ statements of remorse against their refusal to
    admit their guilt in open court and their intent to appeal their sentences”); 
    Thomas, 368 F.2d at 942
    (vacating a sentence “because prior to imposing sentence the judge
    advised the defendant that the judge had no doubt whatsoever as to his guilt, and
    that if he then confessed his guilt the court would take that into account in the
    length of sentence to be imposed”). Unlike in Rodriguez and Thomas, Harris
    freely chose to profess his innocence at length during his allocution. The district
    court in no way conditioned his sentence on his decision to exercise his
    constitutional rights. Instead, it permissibly considered Harris’s voluntary,
    repeated, emphatic, and unbelievable statements of innocence.
    Harris cites United States v. Laca, in which the former Fifth Circuit stated:
    [B]y opining that these defendants had not shown an inclination
    towards repentance, the court erred by predicating the length of these
    sentences on whether the defendants had confessed their crimes. This
    conditioning of sentences on defendants’ confessions violated their
    right to avoid self-incrimination under the Fifth Amendment.
    4
    In Bonner v. City of Prichard, 
    661 F.2d 1206
    , 1209 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc), we adopted as
    binding precedent all decisions of the former Fifth Circuit handed down before October 1, 1981.
    35
    Case: 12-11126   Date Filed: 01/06/2014    Page: 36 of 44
    
    499 F.2d 922
    , 927 (5th Cir. 1974). However, Laca does not mention whether the
    defendants invoked their Fifth Amendment privilege during sentencing and
    remained silent as to their culpability, or whether, like Harris, they freely and on
    their own initiative insisted they did nothing wrong. Laca says little about a
    district court’s consideration of a defendant’s voluntary statements made at his
    own initiative during allocution. As with his Sixth Amendment waiver arguments,
    the Constitution ensures Harris a fair trial. It cannot always protect Harris from
    himself.
    Because the district court’s consideration of Harris’s lack of remorse was
    permissible, we need not inquire as to whether the court’s consideration of that
    factor “substantially affected” his sentence, rendering it unreasonable. 
    Clay, 483 F.3d at 745
    .
    VI.
    Stanley makes two claims concerning his sentencing. We are persuaded by
    neither.
    A.
    First, he argues that the district court erred in failing to recognize him as a
    minor participant for purposes of the Sentencing Guidelines. According to
    Stanley, although he was an active and significant figure with CSHC, and although
    he benefited handsomely from sales of stock, he had only a negligible role in the
    36
    Case: 12-11126    Date Filed: 01/06/2014    Page: 37 of 44
    perpetration of criminal conduct, and did not know that CSHC’s assets were
    worthless or that the stock price was artificially inflated. In other words, he claims
    he was responsible for creating and executing the clean business model, not
    capitalizing the company with the dirty assets. But because evidence showed
    Stanley substantially participated in and profited from the criminal fraud, the
    district court did not clearly err in denying him a minor role reduction.
    We review for clear error the district court’s determination of Stanley’s role
    in the offense as a finding of fact. United States v. Rodriguez De Varon, 
    175 F.3d 930
    , 937 (11th Cir. 1999) (en banc).
    As the Supreme Court has recognized, a trial court’s choice between
    “two permissible views of the evidence” is the very essence of the
    clear error standard of review. So long as the basis of the trial court’s
    decision is supported by the record and does not involve a
    misapplication of a rule of law, we believe that it will be rare for an
    appellate court to conclude that the sentencing court’s determination
    is clearly erroneous.
    
    Id. at 945.
    At sentencing, Stanley bore the burden of proving that he played a minor
    role in the offense by a preponderance of the evidence. 
    Id. at 939.
    The Sentencing
    Guidelines allow for downward adjustments in a defendant’s offense level by 4
    levels “[i]f the defendant was a minimal participant in any criminal activity,” by 2
    levels “[i]f the defendant was a minor participant in any criminal activity,” and by
    3 levels “[i]n cases falling between.” U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 3B1.2.
    37
    Case: 12-11126      Date Filed: 01/06/2014    Page: 38 of 44
    The Commentary to the Guidelines explains that a “minimal participant” is a
    defendant who is “plainly among the least culpable of those involved in the
    conduct of a group.” 
    Id. § 3B1.2
    cmt. 4. In making this assessment, “the
    defendant’s lack of knowledge or understanding of the scope and structure of the
    enterprise and of the activities of others is indicative of a role as minimal
    participant.” 
    Id. A “minor
    participant” is one “who is less culpable than most
    other participants, but whose role could not be described as minimal.” 
    Id. § 3B1.2
    cmt. 5.
    Under De Varon, in determining a defendant’s mitigating role in the offense,
    the district court first “must measure the defendant’s role against the relevant
    conduct for which [he] was held accountable at sentencing,” and second, “may also
    measure the defendant’s role against the other participants, to the extent that they
    are discernable, in that relevant 
    conduct.” 175 F.3d at 945
    . The first step of this
    analysis requires that the district court has held the defendant accountable only for
    activity or losses he participated in. “Only if the defendant can establish that [he]
    played a relatively minor role in the conduct for which [he] has already been held
    accountable -- not a minor role in any larger criminal conspiracy -- should the
    district court grant a downward adjustment for minor role in the offense.” 
    Id. at 944.
    In declining to make a minor role adjustment, the district court held Stanley
    38
    Case: 12-11126      Date Filed: 01/06/2014    Page: 39 of 44
    accountable for the millions of dollars in damages jointly caused by the
    defendants’ securities fraud.
    Stanley relies chiefly on his own testimony of his limited knowledge to
    establish his minor role. Yet, as the Government noted at the sentencing hearing,
    “much of [Stanley’s] argument simply denies the jury’s finding of guilt.” The
    district court found that Stanley recruited investors and lenders for CSHC, falsely
    stated that CSHC owned bond assets and had multiple projects and signed
    contracts in place, and made false statements to individual investors. Stanley
    served as CSHC’s COO and was named as a contact person on several false press
    releases. Stanley and Harris jointly provided false financial information to an
    outside accountant who prepared financial statements for the SEC reflecting
    misrepresentations. Finally, the court found that Stanley profited significantly
    from the fraud, drawing more than $300,000 in salary and reaping gains when his
    ex-wife and daughters sold CSHC’s stock at fraudulently inflated prices. The court
    did not clearly err in finding that Stanley failed to play “a relatively minor role in
    the conduct” for which he had been convicted. 
    Id. Stanley’s arguments
    are similarly unavailing at the second step, which
    provides that courts may compare a defendant’s role against other participants.
    “The fact that a defendant’s role may be less than that of other participants
    engaged in the relevant conduct may not be dispositive of role in the offense, since
    39
    Case: 12-11126     Date Filed: 01/06/2014   Page: 40 of 44
    it is possible that none are minor or minimal participants.” 
    Id. We quoted
    in De
    Varon the following illustration:
    [I]f three individuals had entered a bank with the intent to commit
    robbery and one stood guard at the door, another sprayed paint on the
    camera, and the third gathered the money from a teller’s cage, no
    adjustment for Role in the Offense would be warranted. Even if one
    of the participants deserved an aggravating adjustment because of
    other acts he committed, the other participants would not be entitled to
    minimal or minor Role in the Offense adjustments.
    
    Id. (quoting United
    States v. Daughtrey, 
    874 F.2d 213
    , 216 (4th Cir. 1989)). The
    Eleventh Circuit has rejected a test that “would require sentencing courts to regard
    the least culpable member of any conspiracy as a minor participant, regardless of
    the extent of that member’s participation.” United States v. Zaccardi, 
    924 F.2d 201
    , 203 (11th Cir. 1991) (per curiam). While the district court concluded that
    Stanley’s actions were not as egregious as Harris’s and sentenced him to a
    substantially shorter prison term, it recognized that Stanley played a key part in the
    elaborate securities fraud. The fact that Stanley did less than Harris is not enough
    to yield the conclusion that the trial court committed clear error in denying him a
    minor role reduction.
    B.
    Finally, Stanley argues that his sentence was substantively unreasonable.
    We review the substantive reasonableness of a sentence for abuse of discretion.
    Gall v. United States, 
    552 U.S. 38
    , 51 (2007). This Court may “set aside a
    40
    Case: 12-11126      Date Filed: 01/06/2014    Page: 41 of 44
    sentence only if we determine, after giving a full measure of deference to the
    sentencing judge, that the sentence imposed truly is unreasonable.” United States
    v. Irey, 
    612 F.3d 1160
    , 1191 (11th Cir. 2010) (en banc). As a result, we may
    reverse only if “left with the definite and firm conviction that the district court
    committed a clear error of judgment in weighing the § 3553(a) factors by arriving
    at a sentence that lies outside the range of reasonable sentences dictated by the
    facts of the case.” 
    Id. at 1190
    (quoting United States v. Pugh, 
    515 F.3d 1179
    , 1191
    (11th Cir. 2008)).
    The district court must impose a sentence that is “sufficient, but not greater
    than necessary, to comply with the purposes” listed in § 3553(a)(2), including the
    need to reflect the seriousness of the offense, promote respect for the law, provide
    just punishment for the offense, deter criminal conduct, and protect the public from
    the defendant’s future criminal conduct. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). The court must also
    consider the nature and circumstances of the offense, the history and characteristics
    of the defendant, the kinds of sentences available, the applicable Guidelines range,
    the pertinent policy statements of the Sentencing Commission, the need to avoid
    unwarranted sentencing disparities, and the need to provide restitution to victims.
    
    Id. § 3553(a)(1),
    (3)-(7).
    In reviewing the reasonableness of a sentence, we first ensure that the
    sentence was procedurally reasonable: the district court properly calculated the
    41
    Case: 12-11126     Date Filed: 01/06/2014    Page: 42 of 44
    Guidelines range, treated the Guidelines as advisory and not mandatory,
    considered the § 3553(a) factors, did not select a sentence based on clearly
    erroneous facts, and adequately explained the chosen sentence. 
    Gall, 552 U.S. at 51
    . Then, we examine whether the sentence was reasonable in light of the totality
    of the circumstances. 
    Id. Stanley argues
    chiefly that the Sentencing Guidelines
    themselves fail to take into account critical factors about the offense and the
    defendant: “the scope and duration of the offense; the motivation for the offense;
    and the extent to which the offense was exacerbated by factors beyond the
    defendant’s control.” Stanley observes that the average sentence length for fraud
    offenses is 23.2 months, and the average variance is 52.9%. Finally, Stanley
    identifies cases in which defendants who committed “similar” crimes received
    much lower sentences. See United States v. Parris, 
    573 F. Supp. 2d 744
    (E.D.N.Y.
    2008); United States v. Adelson, 
    441 F. Supp. 2d 506
    (S.D.N.Y. 2006); see also 18
    U.S.C. § 3553(a)(6) (listing as a factor to be considered “the need to avoid
    unwarranted sentence disparities among defendants with similar records who have
    been found guilty of similar conduct”).
    The Government responds that greater deterrence is needed for fraud-based
    crimes that are “more rational, cool, and calculated than sudden crimes of passion
    or opportunity” and thus are “prime candidate[s] for general deterrence.” United
    States v. Martin, 
    455 F.3d 1227
    , 1240 (11th Cir. 2006). To rebut Stanley’s
    42
    Case: 12-11126     Date Filed: 01/06/2014    Page: 43 of 44
    arguments about other sentences around the country, the Government cites United
    States v. Hill, a case in which this Court rejected a similar claim that a sentence
    was unreasonable because of disparities in national fraud 
    sentences. 643 F.3d at 885
    . Hill had been convicted of mortgage fraud that caused a $38 million loss, and
    was sentenced to 336 months’ imprisonment, within his Guidelines range of 324 to
    405 months. 
    Id. at 884-85.
    In finding the sentence reasonable, we stated that
    comparisons to out-of-jurisdiction cases were “difficult to gauge,” and that “we are
    not convinced that a sentence imposed in this circuit is subject to a national grade
    curve.” 
    Id. at 885.
    Moreover, the crimes underlying the cases relied upon by
    Stanley differed substantially from his own conduct. In Adelson, the defendant did
    not originate the fraud, “only joined the conspiracy toward its end,” 
    441 F. Supp. 2d
    at 507, had a role like an “accessory after the fact,” 
    id. at 513,
    and had an
    “exemplary” history, 
    id., unlike Stanley,
    who played a significant part and had a
    history of similar activity with the Broadband Wireless scheme. And in Parris, the
    fraud resulted in only a $5 million 
    loss. 573 F. Supp. 2d at 748
    .
    “Review for reasonableness is deferential. . . . [W]e recognize that there is a
    range of reasonable sentences from which the district court may choose, and when
    the district court imposes a sentence within the advisory Guidelines range, we
    ordinarily will expect that choice to be a reasonable one.” United States v. Talley,
    
    431 F.3d 784
    , 788 (11th Cir. 2005) (per curiam). A sentence imposed well below
    43
    Case: 12-11126     Date Filed: 01/06/2014   Page: 44 of 44
    the statutory maximum penalty is an indicator of a reasonable sentence. United
    States v. Gonzalez, 
    550 F.3d 1319
    , 1324 (11th Cir. 2008) (per curiam). The
    district court imposed a sentence eighteen months below the bottom of the
    Guidelines range, forty-eight months below the Government’s request, and seventy
    months below the top of the Guidelines. We have no reason to find, as Stanley
    suggests, that the Guidelines are substantively unreasonable for all economic fraud
    crimes involving large losses. See 
    Talley, 431 F.3d at 787
    (“[W]e agree that the
    use of the Guidelines remains central to the sentencing process.”).
    At the end of the day, we can discern no abuse of discretion: Stanley’s below
    Guidelines sentence was reasonable in light of the statutory purposes recognized in
    § 3553(a). Again, Stanley’s conduct resulted in an estimated 5,894 victim
    accounts losing many millions of dollars, while Stanley and his family reaped
    significant financial benefit. The district court reviewed the § 3553(a) factors, and
    the “biggest” factors in its analysis were the massive losses and the deliberation
    involved in the offense. Stanley has failed to show that his sentence “is
    unreasonable in light of the record and the § 3553(a) factors.” United States v.
    Tome, 
    611 F.3d 1371
    , 1378 (11th Cir. 2010).
    AFFIRMED.
    44
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 12-11126

Citation Numbers: 739 F.3d 633

Judges: Tjoflat, Marcus, Vinson

Filed Date: 1/6/2014

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 10/19/2024

Authorities (46)

Faretta v. California , 95 S. Ct. 2525 ( 1975 )

Greer v. Miller , 107 S. Ct. 3102 ( 1987 )

Gall v. United States , 128 S. Ct. 586 ( 2007 )

David Larry Nelson v. State of Alabama , 292 F.3d 1291 ( 2002 )

United States v. Gonzalez , 550 F.3d 1319 ( 2008 )

Illinois v. Allen , 90 S. Ct. 1057 ( 1970 )

Taylor v. United States , 94 S. Ct. 194 ( 1973 )

United States v. Isabel Rodriguez De Varon , 175 F.3d 930 ( 1999 )

United States v. Gregory Zaccardi , 924 F.2d 201 ( 1991 )

United States v. Michael Martin , 455 F.3d 1227 ( 2006 )

Robert Dale Murr v. United States , 200 F.3d 895 ( 2000 )

Peter R. Fitzpatrick v. Louie L. Wainwright , 800 F.2d 1057 ( 1986 )

United States v. John Kevin Talley , 431 F.3d 784 ( 2005 )

United States v. James T. Kimball , 291 F.3d 726 ( 2002 )

United States v. Mateos , 66 A.L.R. Fed. 2d 621 ( 2010 )

United States v. Anita Yates , 438 F.3d 1307 ( 2006 )

United States v. Don Edward Cash , 47 F.3d 1083 ( 1995 )

United States v. Irey , 612 F.3d 1160 ( 2010 )

United States v. Adelson , 441 F. Supp. 2d 506 ( 2006 )

united-states-v-david-carrazana-pablo-carballo-anselmo-cosio-carlos , 921 F.2d 1557 ( 1991 )

View All Authorities »

Cited By (18)

United States v. Sean Patrick Farrelly ( 2023 )

United States v. Marcellas Hoffman ( 2023 )

United States v. Marcellas Hoffman ( 2023 )

United States v. Leonard Charles Sapp ( 2023 )

United States v. Gary Baptiste ( 2023 )

United States v. Miguel Martin Lugo ( 2023 )

United States v. Isaac Grossman ( 2023 )

United States v. Isaac Grossman ( 2023 )

United States v. Kilpatrick Cornelius McKinney ( 2023 )

United States v. Garnell Dewitt Quarterman ( 2023 )

United States v. Tavarus Cohen ( 2023 )

United States v. Terrance Moore ( 2023 )

United States v. Milton Wrenn ( 2023 )

United States v. Nnamdi Marcellus Mgbodile ( 2023 )

United States v. Edwin Alan Dominguez-Garcia ( 2023 )

United States v. Joaquin Elias Palma-Padilla ( 2023 )

United States v. Michael Montay Martin ( 2023 )

United States v. Jesus Rodriguez ( 2023 )

View All Citing Opinions »