United States v. Michael Peninger , 456 F. App'x 214 ( 2011 )


Menu:
  •                              UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 10-4732
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff – Appellee,
    v.
    MICHAEL DERRICK PENINGER,
    Defendant – Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    South Carolina, at Charleston.    Patrick Michael Duffy, Senior
    District Judge. (2:09-cr-00034-PMD-1)
    Argued:   October 28, 2011               Decided:   December 1, 2011
    Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    ARGUED: Thomas Aull Withers, Sr., GILLEN, WITHERS & LAKE, LLC,
    Savannah, Georgia, for Appellant.   Michael Rhett DeHart, OFFICE
    OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, South Carolina, for
    Appellee. ON BRIEF: William N. Nettles, United States Attorney,
    Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    A federal jury found that Michael Derrick Peninger operated
    a    fraudulent     investment        and    commodity      trading    scheme    and,
    accordingly, convicted him of eight counts of mail fraud, in
    violation of 
    18 U.S.C. § 1341
     and 
    18 U.S.C. § 2
    , and one count
    of making a false statement to a federal officer, in violation
    of 
    18 U.S.C. § 1001
    .            Peninger absconded prior to sentencing,
    but he was eventually apprehended and sentenced to 240 months
    imprisonment       and    3   years     supervised       release.       On   appeal,
    Peninger   raises        numerous   issues       regarding    his   conviction   and
    sentence, and, considering each argument in turn, we affirm. 1
    I.
    We first consider Peninger’s contention that the district
    court abused its discretion in granting the Government’s motion
    in   limine   to    exclude     testimony        by   Dr.    Leonard   Mulbry,   the
    psychiatrist who performed Peninger’s pretrial competency exam.
    See United States v. Iskander, 
    407 F.3d 232
    , 238 (4th Cir. 2005)
    1
    Peninger raises a total of nine issues.    In addition to
    the four addressed herein, Peninger also challenges the denial
    of a motion for continuance; the limiting of his cross-
    examination of a witness; and the denial of his motion for a new
    trial based upon newly discovered evidence.        Peninger also
    challenges the procedural reasonableness of his sentence and
    contends that the Assistant United States Attorney’s opening
    remarks constituted prosecutorial misconduct.   We have reviewed
    each of these contentions and find them to be without merit.
    2
    (noting that we review exclusion of expert testimony for abuse
    of discretion).         In a pretrial proffer, Dr. Mulbry testified
    that    because    of     Peninger’s     severe    narcissistic           personality
    disorder, many of the fraudulent statements attributed to him
    were “most likely due to his mental illness,” rather than an
    intent to defraud.        (J.A. 119).        The district court excluded the
    testimony, concluding that it was “simply diminished capacity
    evidence or some other form of justification in disguise,” and
    that “[t]he fact that [Peninger’s condition] may motivate that
    behavior in some way . . . does not negate the specific intent
    of doing it.”      (J.A. 129).
    We   conclude    that   the     district   court    did      not    abuse    its
    discretion    in   excluding     the    testimony.        In   United      States    v.
    Worrell,     
    313 F.3d 867
       (4th     Cir.    2002),       we   addressed       the
    admission of diminished capacity testimony in cases, such as
    this, where the defendant was not pursuing an insanity defense.
    We started with a discussion of the Insanity Defense Reform Act
    (IDRA), which provides:
    (a) Affirmative defense.-It is an affirmative defense
    to a prosecution under any Federal statute that, at
    the time of the commission of the acts constituting
    the offense, the defendant, as a result of a severe
    mental disease or defect, was unable to appreciate the
    nature and quality or the wrongfulness of his acts.
    Mental disease or defect does not otherwise constitute
    a defense.
    3
    (b) Burden of proof.-The defendant has the burden of
    proving   the  defense  of  insanity  by  clear  and
    convincing evidence.
    
    18 U.S.C.A. § 17
    .             As we explained, “[t]he language of the
    statute leaves no room for a defense that raises ‘any form of
    legal    excuse       based   upon    one’s     lack    of    volitional    control’
    including ‘a diminished ability or failure to reflect adequately
    upon the consequences or nature of one’s actions.’”                         Worrell,
    
    313 F.3d at 872
     (quoting United States v. Cameron, 
    907 F.2d 1051
    , 1061 (11th Cir. 1990).
    Applying Worrell, we conclude the district court was within
    its discretion to exclude Dr. Mulbry’s testimony.                     The evidence
    of Peninger’s mental illness did not negate the specific intent
    to    defraud   his     victims.      In    Worrell,    we    suggested    testimony
    might be admissible if it was being offered “to show he did not
    do it, not that he could not help it.”                         Id. at 874.          Dr.
    Mulbry’s testimony falls short of this standard because it does
    not suggest that Peninger did not defraud his victims or mean to
    defraud them.         As the district court noted, the testimony is the
    very    type     of    “volitional”        evidence     Worrell    and     the   IDRA
    prohibit—a suggestion for why he committed fraud or why he could
    not    help    himself    commit     fraud.      As    we    succinctly    stated   in
    Worrell, “IDRA bars a defendant who is not pursuing an insanity
    defense from offering evidence of his lack of volitional control
    as an alternative defense.”            Id. at 875.
    4
    II.
    Next, Peninger contends that the district court abused its
    discretion    in    admitting       certain    bank   records    through   an   FBI
    agent.     See United States v. Blake, 
    571 F.3d 331
    , 346 (4th Cir.
    2009) (noting that a district court’s evidentiary rulings are
    reviewed for abuse of discretion).                At trial, the Government’s
    case    agent,     Agent    Derr,    compared    the    investment     statements
    Peninger issued to his investors with the investors’ actual bank
    records.     This comparison illustrated that Peninger sent false
    statements to his investors, claiming their accounts had much
    more money than they actually did.                    Agent Derr received the
    actual bank statements by way of subpoena.                Peninger objected to
    the admission of these statements, arguing that someone had to
    “lay a foundation as to who received it, where it came from.”
    The    district    court    overruled    the    objections,      concluding     that
    anything received from a grand jury subpoena could be admitted
    through Agent Derr.
    Peninger now argues that the bank statements are hearsay
    not subject to Federal Rule of Evidence 803(6), the business
    records    exception.        Peninger,    however,      failed    to   raise    this
    objection below.           Instead, as noted above, Peninger asserted
    only the Government’s duty to authenticate the evidence and the
    agent’s lack of personal knowledge regarding it.
    5
    Because       Peninger    failed       to    specifically      object     on    the
    grounds    raised     on    appeal,    we    review     this   argument     for      plain
    error.     See Fed. R. Crim. P. 52(b).                 Peninger cannot meet this
    rigorous standard.          In this appeal, the Government has filed a
    supplemental appendix noting that, before trial, the Government
    attorneys and Peninger’s counsel communicated by email that the
    records would be admitted under Federal Rule of Evidence 902(11)
    and   that    the     Government      made       the   records     and    the   written
    documents authenticating them available at the pretrial exhibit
    conference.     Certification under Rule 902(11) obviates the need
    for the Government to authenticate business records at trial and
    permitted the bank records admission under Rule 803(6).                                See
    Fed. R. Evid. 902(11) (noting business records are admissible
    without authentication at trial if accompanied “by a written
    declaration     of     [the]    custodian         or   other     qualified      person”
    attesting    that     the    records    satisfy        the   requirements       of    Rule
    803(6)).
    III.
    Peninger also challenges the district court’s decision to
    permit the testimony of Kara Mucha, a trading investigator with
    the   Commodities       Futures       Trading      Commission      (CFTC).           Mucha
    testified    regarding       trading     logs      that   showed    the    numbers     of
    commodity     futures       Peninger     was      trading.       These     logs      were
    obtained by subpoena from other commodity futures trading firms.
    6
    The purpose of this testimony was to show that Peninger traded
    far   fewer   commodity       futures     than    he   told    his    investors    and
    clients.
    Peninger objected that Mucha’s testimony was hearsay, an
    objection     which    the    district     court    overruled        after   it   asked
    several questions to lay a foundation.                 Mucha told the district
    court that the documents were records maintained by companies at
    the direction of the CFTC, that the companies maintained the
    documents as business records, and that the companies had to
    forward these trading documents to the CFTC upon request.                         Mucha
    did not testify, however, as to how these individual trading
    firms maintained the records.             The Government also noted that it
    had offered Peninger the opportunity to review these records
    months before trial, but Peninger had declined to do so.
    The Government contends that Mucha’s testimony was properly
    admissible     under    Rule        803(6).       Peninger    argues     that     these
    documents do not meet the requirements of 803(6) because Mucha
    was neither the “custodian” of the trading logs nor a “qualified
    witness.”      Courts        have    recognized     that     “[a]    foundation    for
    admissibility may at times be predicated on judicial notice of
    the nature of the business and the nature of the records as
    observed by the court, particularly in the case of bank and
    similar statements.”           Federal Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Staudinger,
    
    797 F.2d 908
    , 910 (10th Cir. 1986) (internal quotation marks
    7
    omitted).      Thus, records and testimony are admissible if there
    are sufficient “circumstances demonstrating the trustworthiness
    of the documents.”          United States v. Johnson, 
    971 F.2d 562
    , 571
    (10th Cir. 1992).        Applying this rationale in Johnson, the Tenth
    Circuit      found   admissible      bank       receipts    that    showed      certain
    transactions between investors and the criminal defendants.                           The
    court noted:
    There is simply no dispute that the transactions shown
    by the receipts took place as recorded.       As noted
    above, bank records are particularly suitable for
    admission under Rule 803(6) in light of the fastidious
    nature of record keeping in financial institutions,
    which is often required by governmental regulation.
    
    Id.
    Like    banks,     commodity      futures     trading      firms    are    highly
    regulated by the federal government, and in this case there are
    sufficient “circumstances demonstrating the trustworthiness of
    the documents” to permit Mucha’s testimony.
    Moreover,      even    assuming       this    testimony      was    erroneously
    admitted     under   Rule     803(6),    any       error   is    harmless       for   two
    reasons.      First, courts have found that erroneous Rule 803(6)
    rulings are harmless when the evidence was otherwise admissible
    under Rule 807, the catchall provision.                     See Karme v. C.I.R.,
    
    673 F.2d 1062
    , 1064-65 (9th Cir. 1982); United States v. Jacobs,
    No. 94-5055, 
    1995 WL 434827
    , *2 (4th Cir. 1995) (unpublished)
    (noting      incorrect      admission    of      evidence       under    Rule    803(6)
    8
    harmless when evidence was “both material and probative and the
    interests of justice were well served by their admission” and
    “nothing in the record . . . suggest[s] that the documents were
    other than what they purported to be”).
    Second,       Mucha’s   testimony        regarding       Peninger’s    trading
    records was largely duplicative of evidence presented by the FBI
    that       indicated    only   $60,000     of     the    $7.2     million    Peninger
    obtained      from     investors   was    ever     transferred         to   investment
    companies for trading.          (J.A. 564-65).          Mucha actually testified
    to a higher volume of trades, and her testimony in some regards
    benefitted       Peninger’s     contention        that    he     was    trading   his
    investors’ money. 2
    IV.
    Peninger      also   contends     that    the    district    court     violated
    Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32(h) 3 by failing to provide
    notice of an upward departure.                   Sentencing in this case was
    2
    The Government accounts for this discrepancy by noting
    that Mucha’s records included trades by another individual named
    Michael Peninger, who was unrelated to this investigation.
    3
    Rule 32(h) provides:
    Before the court may depart from the applicable
    sentencing range on a ground not identified for
    departure either in the presentence report or in a
    party’s prehearing submission, the court must give the
    parties reasonable notice that it is contemplating
    such a departure. The notice must specify any ground
    on which the court is contemplating a departure.
    Fed. R. Crim. P. 32(h).
    9
    scheduled for April 10, 2010.                     On that morning, in lieu of
    reporting to court, Peninger absconded, remaining a fugitive for
    more than one week.                After his capture, sentencing was set for
    June 25, 2010.            Prior to this sentencing hearing, the Government
    filed a motion for a two-level upward departure for obstruction
    of justice.         The Government’s motion stated that “the Government
    moves for a 2-level upward departure to account for [Peninger’s]
    failure      to    appear     at    sentencing.”      (J.A.   949).       The   motion
    recounted         that    Peninger     “already    received   an   enhancement     for
    obstruction of justice when he was convicted of lying to the
    FBI,”       and    that     Peninger    “obstructed     justice    again    when   he
    committed perjury at trial.”                (J.A. 948-49).     At sentencing, the
    Government         argued     that     an   upward   departure     was    appropriate
    because Peninger committed perjury during trial and because he
    absconded.           The     district       court,   concerned     with    punishing
    Peninger for absconding when the Government had already filed a
    new indictment against him for that offense, decided to apply an
    upward departure because of Peninger’s perjured testimony. 4
    On appeal, the Government argues that its motion can be
    fairly read to request an upward departure on both Peninger’s
    4
    The Presentence Report (PSR) recommended, and the district
    court adopted, a two-level enhancement for obstruction of
    justice for Peninger’s conviction for making a false statement
    to the FBI. This upward departure was in addition to that two-
    level enhancement.
    10
    absconding and his trial testimony.             At sentencing, the district
    court indicated that it read the Government’s motion to present
    both arguments, but Peninger contends that the motion, fairly
    read, only requests an upward departure for absconding.
    Even   assuming       the   Government’s    motion   failed   to    provide
    proper notice, we believe any error is harmless.                     See United
    States v. Davenport, 
    445 F.3d 366
    , 371 (4th Cir. 2006) (noting
    Rule 32(h) errors can be harmless), overruled in part on other
    grounds by Irizarry v. United States, 
    553 U.S. 708
     (2008); Fed.
    R. Crim. P. 52(a) (noting “[a]ny error, defect, irregularity, or
    variance    that    does    not     affect   substantial    rights      must   be
    disregarded”).      The Presentence Report recommended a two-level
    enhancement   for    the    false    statement    conviction   and    also     for
    Peninger’s numerous instances of perjury during trial.                  Peninger
    was therefore on notice that his perjury was going to be used to
    enhance his offense level in some way.             Moreover, at sentencing
    the district court informed Peninger that it was considering a
    departure or additional enhancement for perjury and permitted
    Peninger to argue on this point. 5
    5
    This case is thus distinguishable from United States v.
    Spring, 
    305 F.3d 276
    , 282-83 (4th Cir. 2002), on which Peninger
    relies.     In Spring, the district court relied on a ground
    presented in the PSR for an upward departure but at sentencing
    failed to give the defendant the opportunity to present any
    argument. 
    Id. at 279-80
    .
    11
    In any event, we have recently indicated that “it would
    make no sense to set aside [a] reasonable sentence and send the
    case back to the district court since it has already told us
    that it would impose exactly the same sentence, a sentence we
    would    be   compelled   to    affirm.”     United    States   v.    Savillon-
    Matute, 
    636 F.3d 119
    , 123 (4th Cir. 2011) (internal quotation
    marks    omitted).        The    district    court     indicated     throughout
    sentencing that it believed 240 months was the “appropriate”
    sentence,     (J.A.   1034),     and   a    sentence    of   240     months   is
    substantively reasonable. 6       See Savillon-Matute, 
    636 F.3d at 124
    .
    Accordingly, to the extent the district court erred in providing
    Rule 32(h) notice, any error is harmless.
    V.
    For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the conviction and
    sentence.
    AFFIRMED
    6
    Even assuming we remanded for a violation of Rule 32(h),
    the district court would not be prohibited from simply changing
    the two-level upward departure into a variance sentence to reach
    240 months.
    12