United States v. Lyons Capital Inc ( 2000 )


Menu:
  •                         UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,              
    Plaintiff-Appellee,
    v.
    LYONS CAPITAL, INCORPORATED, a/k/a        No. 99-4178
    Isip of America Financial
    Corporation, a/k/a Lyons Mortgage
    Brokers Corporation,
    Defendant-Appellant.
    
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,              
    Plaintiff-Appellee,
    v.
    OTTO VON BRESSENSDORF, a/k/a              No. 99-4179
    Ottone Eugeno "Ottone Eugeno
    Camelio Bresselhau", a/k/a Baron
    Otto Von Bressensdorf, a/k/a Baron,
    Defendant-Appellant.
    
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,              
    Plaintiff-Appellee,
    v.
       No. 99-4180
    ELENA VON BRESSENSDORF, a/k/a
    Elena Bisheff, a/k/a Baroness,
    Defendant-Appellant.
    
    2              UNITED STATES v. LYONS CAPITAL, INC.
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,              
    Plaintiff-Appellee,
    v.
              No. 99-4193
    BARBARA LICHTENBERG, a/k/a Barbara
    Lichtenberg-Cooke,
    Defendant-Appellant.
    
    Appeals from the United States District Court
    for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond.
    Robert E. Payne, District Judge.
    (CR-98-14)
    Argued: October 31, 2000
    Decided: December 7, 2000
    Before WILKINSON, Chief Judge, and NIEMEYER and
    MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    COUNSEL
    ARGUED: Robert James Wagner, WAGNER & WAGNER, Rich-
    mond, Virginia; Christopher Ford Cowan, COWAN, NORTH &
    LAFRATTA, L.L.P., Richmond, Virginia; Kathleen Spear Rice,
    BERLINER, CORCORAN & ROWE, Washington, D.C., for Appel-
    lants. James Brien Comey, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney,
    Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Thomas G. Corcoran,
    Jr., BERLINER, CORCORAN & ROWE, Washington, D.C.; James
    J. Harney, DUVALL, HARRIGAN, HALE & DOWNEY, Fairfax,
    Virginia, for Appellant Lichtenberg; Stanley W. Preston, Jr., PRES-
    TON LAW FIRM, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant Lyons Capital.
    UNITED STATES v. LYONS CAPITAL, INC.                 3
    Helen F. Fahey, United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for
    Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
    Local Rule 36(c).
    OPINION
    PER CURIAM:
    In this case a jury convicted three individuals and a corporation of
    conspiracy to commit mail fraud, multiple counts of mail and wire
    fraud, and related charges. They appeal, challenging their convictions
    and sentences on numerous grounds. Finding no reversible error, we
    affirm in all respects.
    I.
    Over the past two decades, Lyons Capitol, Inc., Otto Von Bressen-
    dorf, Elena Von Bressendorf, and Barbara Lichtenberg (collectively
    "the conspirators") engaged in a scheme to defraud clients by con-
    vincing them to pay thousands of dollars in "advance fees" and pro-
    viding almost nothing in return. Ostensibly, Lyons is an investment
    banking firm that specializes in helping promising businesses find
    financial backing through the private placement of securities and joint
    venture partnerships.
    In reality, however, Lyons rarely helped clients at all. Instead,
    through mailings, websites, unsolicited e-mail, videotapes, and other
    means, Lyons attracted mostly nascent companies and individual
    entrepreneurs seeking venture capitol. After interested parties con-
    tacted Lyons and provided a brief outline of their project, Lyons
    employees — often Otto Von Bressendorf — then "screened" the pro-
    posals for those with promise and scheduled an initial meeting with
    potential clients. Typically, at those meetings, Otto Von Bressendorf,
    surrounded by military medals and various other "honors" and
    4               UNITED STATES v. LYONS CAPITAL, INC.
    "awards," fraudulently told clients that he was a "baron" of German
    nobility with extensive connections to the European financial commu-
    nity. Clients were also misled to believe that Lyons had an expansive
    international investor network, a seventy percent success rate in find-
    ing funding for its clients, and had never been the subject of a com-
    plaint or lawsuit.
    In addition to the above misrepresentations, the conspirators hired
    various individuals to write "reference" letters to potential clients
    falsely testifying to Lyons’s successes. Lyons also provided fraudu-
    lent financial statements to Dunn & Bradstreet, which in turn pro-
    duced a commercial credit rating that potential clients used in
    deciding whether to engage Lyons.
    Because of the fraudulent misrepresentations by the conspirators,
    hundreds of clients paid thousands of dollars in advance fees for
    "legal, underwriting, and marketing expenses." The conspirators
    promised that they would use their expertise to help clients create
    offering memoranda that would in turn help them get funded from
    Lyons’s vast network of international investors; they explained that
    this process would take approximately 90-180 days. However, the ini-
    tial memoranda, if completed at all, were rarely finished within a
    year. The conspirators blamed delays on "particularly uncooperative
    clients," when, in fact, they — often Lichtenberg — purposefully
    frustrated and prolonged the underwriting process. Because of the
    frustration and delay, many clients gave up without having received
    anything of value from Lyons. Even clients that completed an offer-
    ing memorandum failed to obtain funding for their projects. Indeed,
    no former clients testified that Lyons helped them obtain funding.
    Following an FBI investigation, the Von Bressendorfs, Lichten-
    berg, and the corporation were charged and convicted of numerous
    counts of mail fraud, 
    18 U.S.C. § 1341
     (1994), and wire fraud, 
    18 U.S.C. § 1343
     (1994), and of one count of conspiracy to commit
    fraud, 
    18 U.S.C. § 371
     (1994); the Von Bressendorfs and Lyons were
    also convicted of money laundering, 
    18 U.S.C. § 1956
     (Supp. II
    1996).
    II.
    The conspirators’ first challenge is to the sufficiency of the evi-
    dence. "If there is substantial evidence to support the verdict, after
    UNITED STATES v. LYONS CAPITAL, INC.                  5
    viewing all of the evidence and the inferences therefrom in the light
    most favorable to the Government, then we must affirm." United
    States v. Murphy, 
    35 F.3d 143
    , 148 (4th Cir. 1994).
    A.
    The Von Bressendorfs and Lyons contend that the evidence failed
    to prove anything beyond "seller’s talk" or "puffery" and did not
    establish material misrepresentations intended to defraud. Our close
    review of the record reveals that the government in fact proffered suf-
    ficient evidence to prove that they made many material misrepresen-
    tations from which the jury was entitled to conclude they intended to
    defraud their clients.
    Their arguments to the contrary simply constitute attempts to reliti-
    gate issues decided at trial by the jury. For example, Otto Von
    Bressendorf asserts that the government failed to demonstrate that he
    lied about his ancestry and his foreign investment contacts. This argu-
    ment, however, amounts to nothing more than an attack on the credi-
    bility of a government witness who testified that, upon investigation,
    he found nothing in the Austrian archives to support Von Bressen-
    dorf’s claim that he was given the title "Baron." We "do not weigh
    the evidence or review the credibility of witnesses in resolving the
    issue of substantial evidence." United States v. Saunders, 
    886 F.2d 56
    ,
    60 (4th Cir. 1989) (quoting United States v. Arrington, 
    719 F.2d 701
    ,
    704 (4th Cir. 1983)).
    Similarly, the conspirators assert that the government failed to
    prove that Lyons had less than a seventy percent success rate because
    the government produced only sixteen former clients to testify that
    Lyons failed them. Those sixteen witnesses assertedly comprised less
    than three — not seventy — percent of the projects that the company
    accepted over the years. This argument also fails. The FBI obtained,
    and the government introduced at trial, a list of 209 Lyons projects
    between February 1992 and September 1997, none of which produced
    funds for Lyons’s clients. Moreover, despite testimony from sixteen
    clients regarding Lyons’s misrepresentations and failures, the conspir-
    ators failed to produce even one satisfied customer. It would hardly
    have been irrational for the jury to conclude that the conspirators mis-
    represented Lyons’s past successes.
    6                UNITED STATES v. LYONS CAPITAL, INC.
    Lichtenberg argues separately that the evidence fails to support her
    conviction for mail fraud, either as a principal or an aider and abettor.
    As with the other conspirators, the jury was entitled to convict Lich-
    tenberg on the evidence adduced at trial. Contrary to her claims, the
    government produced evidence that she lied about the success rate of
    the company, lied about being an attorney, and frustrated clients’
    attempts to complete the underwriting process, thereby contributing
    to the failure of many projects. The record reveals ample evidence
    that Lichtenberg was an integral and willing participant in the scheme
    to defraud.
    B.
    The conspirators also contend that the evidence was insufficient to
    sustain a conviction for conspiracy to commit fraud in violation of 
    18 U.S.C. § 371
     (1994). First, they contest the sufficiency of the evi-
    dence to establish an agreement between the parties. Relying on our
    decision in United States v. Giunta, 
    925 F.2d 758
    , 766 (4th Cir.
    1991), they maintain that we apply "heightened vigilance" to suffi-
    ciency claims in conspiracy cases. They fail to acknowledge, how-
    ever, that we explicitly overruled Giunta’s "heightened vigilance"
    analysis in United States v. Burgos, 
    94 F.3d 849
    , 859-60 (4th Cir.
    1996) (en banc). Although in this case the government produced no
    direct evidence of an agreement to commit mail fraud, "a conspiracy
    may be proved wholly by circumstantial evidence." Burgos, 
    94 F.3d at 858
    . The government offered evidence from which a rational jury
    could infer beyond a reasonable doubt that the Von Bressendorfs and
    Lichtenberg jointly conspired to commit fraud. Indeed, their relation-
    ship, length of association, and similar attitude and conduct — e.g.,
    lying about the success of the company — all point to the existence
    of a conspiracy. See 
    id.
     (listing factors tending to prove a conspiracy);
    United States v. Collazo, 
    732 F.2d 1200
    , 1205 (4th Cir. 1984).
    The conspirators’ second argument regarding § 371 is equally
    unavailing. That statute punishes those that "conspire either to com-
    mit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United
    States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose." 
    18 U.S.C. § 371
    . The conspirators contend that "there was absolutely no
    evidence, either direct or indirect, of an agreement between the appel-
    lants to defraud the United States." To be sure, there is no evidence
    UNITED STATES v. LYONS CAPITAL, INC.                  7
    that they agreed to defraud the United States, but the government pro-
    duced ample evidence to prove that they agreed to commit an offense
    — wire fraud in violation of § 1343 and mail fraud in violation of
    § 1341 — against the United States. Such evidence suffices to prove
    a violation of § 371. See United States v. Ellis, 
    121 F.3d 908
    , 913 (4th
    Cir. 1997) ("§ 371 extends generally to cover any offense made illegal
    by federal law.").
    C.
    In addition, the Von Bressendorfs and Lyons contend that the evi-
    dence was insufficient to prove money laundering in violation of 
    18 U.S.C. § 1956
    (a)(1)(A)(i) because the government purportedly did
    not prove the use of illegal proceeds to "commit the next step in the
    alleged scheme." This argument too is meritless.
    Section 1956 does not require proof that a defendant used illegally
    obtained money to commit the "next step" in the scheme. Rather, the
    government must demonstrate only that a defendant "conducts or
    attempts to conduct such a financial transaction . . . with the intent to
    promote the carrying on of specified unlawful activity." 
    18 U.S.C. § 1956
    (a)(1)(A)(i). The government produced ample evidence to sup-
    port that conclusion. Indeed, the Von Bressendorfs stipulated that
    advance fees were used to pay the bills and "promote and carry on the
    business" — a fraudulent business. Thus, their reliance on United
    States v. Heaps, 
    39 F.3d 479
     (4th Cir. 1994), is misplaced. In Heaps,
    we reversed a money laundering conviction because the defendants
    used drug proceeds to pay for drugs previously obtained on credit. In
    other words, the money was used to complete a past transaction, not
    to further future illegal activity. Heaps, 
    39 F.3d at 484-86
    . There was
    no evidence in that case that the money was "itself used to promote
    an unlawful activity." 
    Id. at 486
    . In contrast, here the Von Bressen-
    dorfs concede that the money they obtained from clients — money
    that a jury found was obtained fraudulently — was used to further
    their business.
    III.
    In addition to contesting the sufficiency of the evidence, the con-
    spirators also argue that prosecutorial misconduct occurred through-
    8               UNITED STATES v. LYONS CAPITAL, INC.
    out the trial, which entitled them to a mistrial. Our test for
    prosecutorial misconduct "generally has two components: that (1) the
    prosecutor’s remarks or conduct must in fact have been improper, and
    (2) such remarks or conduct must have prejudicially affected the
    defendant’s substantial rights so as to deprive the defendant of a fair
    trial." United States v. Mitchell, 
    1 F.3d 235
    , 240 (4th Cir. 1993)
    (internal quotations omitted). See also United States v. Wilson, 
    135 F.3d 291
    , 297 (4th Cir. 1998).
    The conspirators assert that the prosecutors engaged in misconduct
    on a number of occasions. For example, they argue that the govern-
    ment’s characterization of Lyons’s business as a "con game, cheat, a
    scam, a flim flam" during opening statement amounted to prejudicial
    misconduct. These statements, however, reflect an accurate depiction
    of what the government set out to prove; judging from the jury ver-
    dict, the government succeeded.
    The conspirators also object to the prosecution’s redirect examina-
    tion of one of the attorneys who wrote "reference" letters to potential
    clients; the prosecutor inquired whether the witness was currently
    under indictment for securities fraud in another jurisdiction. Defense
    counsel objected, the trial judge sustained the objection, and then
    instructed the jury to disregard the question. We fail to see any preju-
    dice. We presume that jurors follow instructions from the judge. See
    United States v. Olano, 
    507 U.S. 725
    , 740 (1993). Moreover, we can-
    not conclude that this one isolated question in a nine-day criminal
    trial, in which the prosecution introduced ample evidence to support
    the jury’s verdict, misled the jury or prejudiced any defendant.
    Similarly, the conspirators claim that the prosecutors often referred
    to Lyons’s "zero" success rate despite testimony as to at least one
    closed deal. Again, even if the prosecution statements were improper
    — and we do not hold that they were — this small discrepancy did
    not prejudicially affect any of defendant’s substantial rights.
    Finally, the conspirators argue that the prosecutors asked improper
    and misleading questions regarding the application of securities laws.
    The gist of the questions at issue was whether "marketing" and "post-
    ing" of private placements (mostly preferred stock offerings) through
    the Internet would violate securities laws. The conspirators claim that
    UNITED STATES v. LYONS CAPITAL, INC.                 9
    no factual predicate supported these questions because there was no
    evidence that private placement postings or marketing appeared on
    the Internet. But contrary to their assertions, Lyons’s website adver-
    tised private placements and gave explicit instructions about how to
    initiate a private placement project with Lyons. The website also con-
    tained several pages listing current projects without disclosing
    whether they were private placement or joint venture projects. In
    addition, while the conspirators may not have violated the law by fail-
    ing to secure a securities license, the government argued that their
    lack of licensure demonstrated that they were not serious about help-
    ing their clients obtain funding; otherwise, they would have been
    licensed to handle securities offerings in the United States.
    Moreover, even if these questions had lacked a factual predicate,
    the conspirators provide no persuasive argument on which to base a
    finding that these questions deprived them of a fair trial. These ques-
    tions comprised an extremely small portion of the trial in which, as
    discussed above, there was ample evidence to sustain the verdict. See
    United States v. Harrison, 
    716 F.2d 1050
    , 1052 (4th Cir. 1983)
    (explaining that the extent of the remarks and strength of other proof
    are to be considered in the prosecutorial misconduct calculation).1
    Accordingly, we find no prosecutorial misconduct requiring the trial
    judge to order a mistrial.
    IV.
    The conspirators also claim that the district court committed a
    number of trial errors.
    A.
    First, they contend that the trial judge erred by making a biased
    comment in front of the jury and subsequently failing to grant a mis-
    trial due to that comment. We review for abuse of discretion both a
    claim of bias in the conduct of a trial, United States v. Castner, 
    50 F.3d 1267
    , 1272 (4th Cir. 1995), and a trial court’s refusal to declare
    1
    Lichtenberg makes separate claims of prosecutorial misconduct that
    amount to nothing more than additional sufficiency of the evidence
    claims that are as meritless as those discussed above.
    10               UNITED STATES v. LYONS CAPITAL, INC.
    a mistrial. United States v. Dorlouis, 
    107 F.3d 248
    , 257 (4th Cir.
    1997).
    During the examination of a government witness, the district court
    asked the prosecutor to identify the number of the exhibit being
    shown the witness. The judge explained that he wanted the exhibit
    number on the record because "it won’t be me, I will be long gone
    when this case is being considered by the Court of Appeals and they
    want to be able to look at [the exhibit]." The conspirators immediately
    objected to the use of "the Court of Appeals" and moved for a mis-
    trial, which the district court denied. They argue that the judge abused
    his discretion in refusing to grant a mistrial, asserting that the com-
    ment expressed his belief that they would be convicted and subse-
    quently appeal.
    The trial judge’s statement could not have prejudiced the jury
    unless the jurors knew that only a criminal defendant — and not the
    government — has an absolute right to appeal. See United States v.
    Martin Linen Supply Co., 
    430 U.S. 564
    , 568 (1977).2 Moreover, the
    judge’s comment in this case was one short, insignificant remark in
    a nine-day trial. Cf. United States v. Fuller, 
    162 F.3d 256
     (4th Cir.
    1998) (upholding a conviction despite a far more prejudicial judicial
    comment). Finally, the judge gave an appropriate curative instruction.
    By his comment, the trial judge did not express his views about the
    credibility of witness testimony, cf. Quercia v. United States, 
    289 U.S. 466
    , 471-72 (1933); Fuller, 
    162 F.3d at 260
    , or add to the con-
    spirators’ burden of proof, Bihn v. United States, 
    328 U.S. 633
    , 637
    (1946). Rather, the district judge made an inconsequential and inno-
    cent remark that he later cured with an appropriate instruction. Nei-
    ther his comment nor his refusal to grant a mistrial constitutes an
    abuse of discretion.
    B.
    According to the government, the conspirators furthered their
    "scheme to defraud" by paying individuals to write "reference" letters
    2
    In fact, a defense attorney conceded at oral argument that it would be
    a "stretch" to think that most jurors are aware of that rather counter-
    intuitive fact.
    UNITED STATES v. LYONS CAPITAL, INC.                 11
    to prospective clients expounding upon, among other things, Lyons’s
    past successes. During the testimony of a "reference" attorney, the
    prosecutor asked where he obtained his knowledge of these "suc-
    cesses." The attorney replied that his knowledge came from Otto Von
    Bressendorf, at which time defense counsel objected on grounds of
    attorney-client privilege. The trial judge overruled that objection, and
    Lyons Capital and the Von Bressendorfs now appeal that ruling. We
    review determinations as to the existence of attorney-client privilege
    for clear error. United States v. Aramony, 
    88 F.3d 1369
    , 1389 (4th
    Cir. 1996).
    Communications between attorney and client are privileged only if
    the client "intended [the information] to be kept confidential." In re
    Grand Jury Proceedings, 
    727 F.2d 1352
    , 1355 (4th Cir. 1984). It is
    clear from the nature of the communication between Otto Von
    Bressendorf and the "reference" attorney, that Von Bressendorf did
    not intend to keep this information confidential, but rather fully
    expected the attorney to share the "successes" of his company with
    potential clients as a means of attracting new business. Accordingly,
    the district court did not err in overruling the objection.
    C.
    The conspirators also assert that the district court erred in several
    evidentiary rulings. We review such decisions for abuse of discretion.
    United States v. Ward, 
    171 F.3d 188
    , 195 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 
    120 S.Ct. 137
     (1999).
    1.
    Prior to trial, the defense deposed a German newspaper editor, who
    testified that one of his reporters investigated Otto Von Bressendorf’s
    background and determined that he was indeed a baron. The govern-
    ment objected on hearsay grounds to the introduction of this deposi-
    tion at trial; the district judge sustained the objection. The
    conspirators claim that this was in error because the Federal Rules of
    Criminal Procedure allow the use of "a deposition, so far as otherwise
    admissible under the rules of evidence." Fed R. Crim. P. 15(e). They
    contend that the deposition is "otherwise admissible" under Rules
    804(b)(1) and 803(19) of the Federal Rules of Evidence. Rule
    12              UNITED STATES v. LYONS CAPITAL, INC.
    804(b)(1) allows the admission of former testimony if the declarant
    is unavailable - which he was in this case — and Rule 803(19) per-
    mits testimony, which would otherwise be hearsay, regarding:
    Reputation among members of a person’s family by blood,
    adoption, or marriage, or among a person’s associates, or in
    the community, concerning a person’s birth, adoption, mar-
    riage, divorce, death, legitimacy, relationship by blood,
    adoption, or marriage, ancestry, or other similar fact of per-
    sonal or family history.
    Fed. R. Evid. 803(19) (emphasis added).
    The conspirators argue that the editor’s statement should have been
    admitted because it concerned Otto Von Bressendorf’s "reputation . . .
    in the community" regarding his "ancestry" and "family history." But
    no record evidence demonstrates that the editor’s information was
    based on Otto Von Bressendorf’s "reputation . . . in the community."
    The editor simply testified that his reporter told him this following an
    unspecified background investigation. During deposition, the editor
    admitted that he did not know where the reporter obtained his infor-
    mation. See 31 Michael Graham, Federal Practice and Procedure: Evi-
    dence § 6770 (Interim ed. 1997) ("The witness called to testify to
    such reputation must be shown to . . . be familiar with the reputa-
    tion.") (emphasis added).
    Even if the defense had offered proof that the editor’s testimony
    stated facts based on Von Bressendorf’s "reputation . . . in the com-
    munity" it was inadmissible. The Advisory Committee Note to Sec-
    tion 803(19) provides:
    Trustworthiness in reputation evidence is found "when
    the topic is such that the facts are likely to have been
    inquired about and that persons having personal knowledge
    have disclosed facts which have thus been discussed in the
    community; and thus the community’s conclusion, if any has
    been formed, is likely to be a trustworthy one." 5 Wigmore
    § 1580, p. 444, and see also § 1583.
    UNITED STATES v. LYONS CAPITAL, INC.                 13
    Fed. R. Evid. 803(19) advisory committee’s note (emphasis added).
    Moreover, as the Third Circuit recently held, "reputation testimony
    arises from sufficient inquiry and discussion among persons with per-
    sonal knowledge of the matter to constitute a trustworthy ‘reputa-
    tion.’" Blackburn v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 
    179 F.3d 81
    , 100 (3d
    Cir. 1999). The defense offered no evidence that Otto Von Bressen-
    dorf had a trustworthy reputation in his community as a baron, or oth-
    erwise. In fact, when presented at deposition with two documents
    disputing Otto Von Bressendorf’s claim to nobility, the editor readily
    admitted that "my doubts grow."
    In sum, the district court’s decision to exclude the deposition
    hardly constituted an abuse of discretion.
    2.
    The conspirators also contend that the district court erred in admit-
    ting testimony of an IRS agent regarding Lyons’s federal income tax
    returns and internal financial statements. They assert that this testi-
    mony was both irrelevant and violated Federal Rule of Evidence
    404(b) because it impermissibly introduced evidence of prior bad acts
    to prove their "criminal propensity." These arguments have no merit.
    This evidence was highly relevant and "admissible to prove involve-
    ment in the charged [offense] and not simply to prove similar acts."
    United States v. Dozie, 
    27 F.3d 95
    , 97 (4th Cir. 1994).
    The government elicited the agent’s testimony to demonstrate that
    Lyons’s financial statements were "grossly overstated" when com-
    pared to its tax returns. Lyons provided these overstated statements
    to Dunn & Bradstreet as the basis for assigning a "rating" to Lyons.
    Dunn & Bradstreet in turn provided its ratings to potential clients,
    who consulted the ratings in deciding whether to employ Lyons’s
    "services." Therefore, the financial overstatements were relevant and
    furthered the scheme to defraud. The testimony also tended to prove
    that the conspirators falsely told clients that the advance fees were
    required to cover "legal, underwriting, and marketing expenses." In
    fact, according to this testimony, fees paid to Lyons were often used
    for the Von Bressendorfs’ personal expenses.
    14               UNITED STATES v. LYONS CAPITAL, INC.
    In sum, the challenged testimony provided "direct evidence of the
    scheme to defraud." United States v. Loayza, 
    107 F.3d 257
    , 264 (4th
    Cir. 1997).
    D.
    Defendants assert that the district court erroneously instructed the
    jury with regard to the element of "materiality" under the mail and
    wire fraud statutes. 
    18 U.S.C. §§ 1341
    , 1343. Conviction under
    § 1341 and § 1343 requires a fact finder to determine that a "scheme
    to defraud" involved "material" — as opposed to inconsequential —
    falsehoods. Neder v. United States, 
    119 S.Ct. 1827
    , 1839-41 (1999).
    Although the conspirators concede that the district court instructed the
    jury as to materiality, they nonetheless maintain that a subsequent
    "misinstruction" was "tantamount to a failure to instruct the jury on
    materiality."
    The challenged instruction stated "that it is not a defense to the
    charge that the alleged victim or victims were gullible or that a rea-
    sonably prudent person would not have been deceived." This instruc-
    tion correctly stated the law that victim gullibility does not exculpate
    the defendants. See Neder, 
    119 S.Ct. at 1841
     (requiring proof of
    actual reliance would "clearly be inconsistent with the [mail and wire
    fraud] statutes"); see also United States v. Colton, 
    2000 WL 1648877
    *10 (4th Cir. Nov. 3, 2000) ("If a scheme to defraud has been or is
    intended to be devised, it makes no difference whether the persons the
    schemers intended to defraud are gullible or skeptical, dull or bright.
    These are criminal statutes, not tort concepts.") (quoting United States
    v. Brien, 
    617 F.2d 299
    , 311 (1st Cir. 1980)). Thus we find no error.
    E.
    The conspirators also appeal the district court’s failure to instruct
    the jury that they were not required to obtain a SEC license. "A dis-
    trict court’s refusal to provide an instruction requested by a defendant
    constitutes reversible error only if the instruction: (1) was correct; (2)
    was not substantially covered by the court’s charge to the jury; and
    (3) dealt with some point in the trial so important, that failure to give
    the requested instruction seriously impaired the defendant’s ability to
    UNITED STATES v. LYONS CAPITAL, INC.                  15
    conduct his defense." United States v. Lewis, 
    53 F.3d 29
    , 33 (1995)
    (quotations omitted).
    We are unable to determine if the proposed instruction was correct,
    because the record contains no proposed instruction. And while the
    court did not "substantially cover" the issue in its charge to the jury,
    the "failure to give the requested instruction" did not "seriously
    impair" the conspirators’ ability to conduct their defense.3 The securi-
    ties issue consumed a minuscule portion of the trial, and the govern-
    ment’s closing statement contained only one passing mention of the
    lack of a securities license. Accordingly, we do not find that the
    absence of this jury instruction warrants reversal.
    V.
    Finally, the conspirators challenge their sentences on several
    grounds.
    A.
    Lichtenberg raises two Sentencing Guidelines issues. We review
    the district court’s legal interpretations of the Sentencing Guidelines
    de novo, but review factual findings for clear error. United States v.
    Jones, 
    31 F.3d 1304
    , 1315 (4th Cir. 1994).
    She appeals the two-level enhancement imposed for her use of a
    "special skill, in a manner that significantly facilitated the commis-
    sion or concealment of the offense." U.S.S.G. § 3B1.3. Lichtenberg
    argues that the district court found her special skill to be the ability
    to "dupe" people, which is "included in the base offense level," of her
    fraud convictions. She claims that the sentence therefore violates
    U.S.S.G. § 3B1.3, which provides that the "adjustment may not be
    employed if . . . [the] skill is included in the base offense level."
    3
    In this case, it is even unclear whether the trial judge "refused" the
    jury instruction. The available record reflects that the prosecutors
    acceded to the jury instruction, but for unknown reasons the judge failed
    to give such an instruction. Moreover, because Defendants failed to
    object to the absence of this instruction when asked by the judge if there
    were any objections, we review this question for plain error.
    16               UNITED STATES v. LYONS CAPITAL, INC.
    In fact, the sentencing court clearly found that Lichtenberg’s skill
    was more than the mere ability to "dupe" clients. The sentencing court
    reasoned:
    [T]he record is that she possessed sufficient indicia and
    knowledge of legal requirements of the underwriting pro-
    cess to successfully dupe many people, including some law-
    yers, into believing she was an expert in the area, and these
    people relied on her advice and expertise in preparing offer-
    ing memoranda.
    Indeed, the court found that Lichtenberg’s "underwriting expertise
    here is not a skill possessed by members of the general public. So she,
    in fact, had a special skill." Lichtenberg employed her special skill
    and knowledge to defraud Lyons’s clients and thus properly received
    the § 3B1.3 enhancement.
    Lichtenberg also challenges the 14-level increase that the judge
    applied because the fraud caused a loss that exceeded $5 million. See
    U.S.S.G. § 2F1.1(b)(1)(O). She argues that the district court erred by
    attributing all losses to her conduct. But the district court specifically
    found that Lichtenberg "was so intimately involved in the operations
    and in effectuating the frauds that were the business of this company
    that it would defy reality to believe that she shouldn’t be held
    accountable under the reasonably foreseeable standard that applies to
    determine what losses she is to be held accountable for." The sentenc-
    ing court also noted that even if Lichtenberg could not be held respon-
    sible for all of the $9.9 million in losses, she was certainly responsible
    for at least $5 million of the losses, and thus deserved the 14-level
    increase.
    B.
    Finally, the conspirators assert that restitution ordered pursuant to
    the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act ("MVRA"), 18 U.S.C.
    § 3663A, 3664 (Supp. II 1996), violated the Ex Post Facto Clause.
    The MVRA applies to post-1996 convictions, 
    18 U.S.C. § 2249
     (stat-
    utory notes), and does not require the sentencing court to consider the
    defendant’s ability to pay restitution. See 18 U.S.C. § 3663A(a)(1).
    The MVRA amended the Victim and Witness Protection Act
    UNITED STATES v. LYONS CAPITAL, INC.                  17
    ("VWPA"), 
    18 U.S.C. § 3664
    (a) (Supp. II 1990), which, by contrast,
    did require the sentencing court to consider the defendant’s ability to
    pay when ordering restitution. The conspirators argue that applying
    the MVRA to conduct that occurred before 1996 disadvantaged them
    and increased the severity of their punishment in violation of the Ex
    Post Facto Clause.
    Although several circuits have held that application of the MVRA
    to criminal conduct committed before its enactment violates the Ex
    Post Facto Clause, see, e.g., United States v. Edwards, 
    162 F.3d 87
    ,
    92 (3d Cir. 1998); United States v. Siegel, 
    153 F.3d 1256
    , 1260 (11th
    Cir. 1998); United States v. Williams, 
    128 F.3d 1239
    , 1241 (8th Cir.
    1997); United States v. Baggett, 
    125 F.3d 1319
    , 1322 (9th Cir. 1997);
    United States v. Thompson, 
    113 F.3d 13
    , 15 n.1 (2d Cir. 1997), we
    have not yet decided the issue. See United States v. Karam, 
    201 F.3d 320
    , 330 & n.13 (4th Cir. 2000). Nor need we do so in this case.
    This is so because all of the presentence reports in this case contain
    sections regarding the conspirators’ "Ability to Pay" and explicit
    information regarding their income and assets. The district judge not
    only adopted the presentence reports, he also addressed the conspira-
    tors’ available income and assets, and appointed a Trustee/Special
    Master to provide, inter alia, "a statement as to the amount of money
    available for making restitution." We have made clear that "a sentenc-
    ing court satisfies its duty [under the VWPA] to make specific find-
    ings if it adopts a presentence report ‘that contains adequate factual
    findings to allow effective appellate review of the fine or restitution.’"
    
    Id. at 329
     (quoting United States v. Castner, 
    50 F.3d 1267
    , 1277 (4th
    Cir. 1995)). See also United States v. Dawkins, 
    202 F.3d 711
    , 716
    (4th Cir. 2000) (upholding restitution order because the court
    "adopted the proposed findings of the presentence report, which con-
    tained a section concerning Dawkins’ financial condition"). Cf.
    United States v. Ubakanma, 
    215 F.3d 421
    , 428 n.7 & 429 (4th Cir.
    2000) (vacating and remanding a restitution order in part because the
    presentence report made no recommendation as to restitution).
    Accordingly, the conspirators’ ex post facto claim fails.4
    4
    The conspirators also raise an ineffective assistance of counsel claim,
    but because it does not "conclusively appear" from the record that they
    18               UNITED STATES v. LYONS CAPITAL, INC.
    VI.
    In sum, we have carefully reviewed the record and the arguments
    of all the parties and affirm the conspirators’ convictions and sen-
    tences in all respects.
    AFFIRMED
    received constitutionally ineffective assistance, their claims must be
    raised "in the district court by a collateral challenge pursuant to 
    28 U.S.C. § 2255
    , rather than in the appellate court by direct appeal." United
    States v. Smith, 
    62 F.3d 641
    , 651 (4th Cir. 1995).
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 99-4178

Filed Date: 12/7/2000

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/30/2014

Authorities (32)

Bihn v. United States , 66 S. Ct. 1172 ( 1946 )

97-cal-daily-op-serv-7713-97-daily-journal-dar-12370-united-states , 125 F.3d 1319 ( 1997 )

united-states-v-zeek-martins-nna-dozie-aka-zeek-nna-dozie-united , 27 F.3d 95 ( 1994 )

United States v. James E. Arrington , 719 F.2d 701 ( 1983 )

United States v. Naylor R. Harrison, Jr., United States of ... , 716 F.2d 1050 ( 1983 )

United States v. Martin Linen Supply Co. , 97 S. Ct. 1349 ( 1977 )

Quercia v. United States , 53 S. Ct. 698 ( 1933 )

United States v. Thomas Edward Karam , 201 F.3d 320 ( 2000 )

United States v. Tony Jerome Murphy , 35 F.3d 143 ( 1994 )

Benjamin Blackburn v. United Parcel Service, Inc. Patricia ... , 179 F.3d 81 ( 1999 )

united-states-v-norman-harrington-wilson-aka-stormin-norman-united , 135 F.3d 291 ( 1998 )

united-states-v-james-a-brien-united-states-of-america-v-thomas-labus , 617 F.2d 299 ( 1980 )

United States v. Frank Kahled Burgos, United States of ... , 94 F.3d 849 ( 1996 )

Neder v. United States , 119 S. Ct. 1827 ( 1999 )

United States v. William Aramony, United States of America ... , 88 F.3d 1369 ( 1996 )

United States v. Siegel , 153 F.3d 1256 ( 1998 )

United States v. James M. Castner, United States of America ... , 50 F.3d 1267 ( 1995 )

United States v. Prentice Harold Dawkins , 202 F.3d 711 ( 2000 )

United States v. Lancelot Ward, United States of America v. ... , 171 F.3d 188 ( 1999 )

Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 91,487, 15 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 428 in ... , 727 F.2d 1352 ( 1984 )

View All Authorities »