United States v. Lutz , 209 F. App'x 244 ( 2006 )


Menu:
  •                    Rehearing granted, March 29, 2007
    UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 05-4519
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    FREDERICK SIMON LUTZ,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
    District of North Carolina, at Durham. Frank W. Bullock, Jr.,
    District Judge. (CR-04-9)
    Submitted:   February 15, 2006          Decided:     December 14, 2006
    Before TRAXLER, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded by unpublished per
    curiam opinion.
    Frederick Simon Lutz, Appellant Pro Se. Anna Mills Wagoner, United
    States Attorney, Sandra Jane Hairston, Assistant United States
    Attorney, Lawrence Patrick Auld, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
    ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Frederick Simon Lutz appeals his conviction by jury and
    sentence on all charges in a nine-count superseding indictment that
    included various counts of mail and wire fraud, in violation of 
    18 U.S.C. §§ 1341
    , 1343 (2000); money laundering, in violation of 
    18 U.S.C. § 1956
    (a)(1)(A)(I) (2000); and making a false material
    statement      to   a    federal    agent,        in   violation       of   
    18 U.S.C. § 1001
    (a)(2) (2000).        The district court sentenced Lutz to a term
    of imprisonment of twelve months and one day, a term of supervised
    release of three years, and ordered payment of restitution in the
    amount   of    $124,106.72     as    well    as    payment   of    a    $900     special
    assessment.         On   appeal,    Lutz    contends     that   the     evidence    was
    insufficient to establish the existence of a scheme to defraud,
    that Lutz acted with intent to defraud, and that Lutz made a
    material false statement to a federal agent.                       In addition, he
    asserts error in the district court’s submission of a willful
    blindness instruction to the jury.                 Finally, Lutz challenges the
    district court’s inclusion in its restitution order of losses
    arising from an uncharged offense.
    We have reviewed Lutz’s sufficiency of the evidence
    claims based on the record before us,1 and conclude that the claims
    are without merit.        In evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence
    1
    The entire trial transcript has not been made part of the
    record on appeal.
    - 2 -
    supporting a criminal conviction on direct review, “[t]he verdict
    of a jury must be sustained if there is substantial evidence,
    taking the view most favorable to the Government, to support it.”
    Glasser v. United States, 
    315 U.S. 60
    , 80 (1942).                     Substantial
    evidence is evidence “that a reasonable finder of fact could accept
    as adequate and sufficient to support a conclusion of a defendant’s
    guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” United States v. Burgos, 
    94 F.3d 849
    , 862 (4th Cir. 1996) (en banc). We consider circumstantial and
    direct evidence, and allow the Government the benefit of all
    reasonable inferences from the facts proven to those sought to be
    established.    United States v. Tresvant, 
    677 F.2d 1018
    , 1021 (4th
    Cir. 1982). In resolving issues of substantial evidence, we do not
    weigh evidence or review witness credibility.               United States v.
    Lomax, 
    293 F.3d 701
    , 705 (4th Cir. 2002); see also Burgos, 
    94 F.3d at 863
    .     Rather,   it   is   the   role   of   the   jury   to    judge   the
    credibility of witnesses, resolve conflicts in testimony, and weigh
    the evidence.     United States v. Manbeck, 
    744 F.2d 360
    , 392 (4th
    Cir. 1984).
    Evidence was presented at trial in this case to support
    the jury’s findings that Lutz was involved with, and had the
    requisite criminal intent to act with others to perpetrate, a real
    estate scheme involving property-flipping through the use of straw-
    buyers in whose names loans were obtained through providing false
    information to lenders.       Mortgage brokers presented or caused the
    - 3 -
    presentation     of     loan    applications     and    verification      materials
    containing such false information to lenders.                  Mortgage payments
    were not made and the properties went into foreclosure. Settlement
    statements prepared in connection with and provided to the lenders
    in order to finalize the transactions also contained material false
    statements about the receipt and disbursement of funds, such as
    cash brought to closing by straw-buyers and the recipients of
    closing proceeds.        The evidence demonstrated that Lutz assisted in
    perpetrating the scheme, inter alia, by concealing the “flip”
    nature   of    the     transactions      from    the    lenders   (including      by
    falsifying     documentation        regarding     the    disbursement      of    loan
    proceeds) and the fact that the same straw-buyer was purchasing
    multiple properties in rapid succession all as primary residences.
    Contrary to Lutz’s contention, the evidence in fact demonstrated
    how   the     scheme    to     defraud    worked,      the   identities    of     its
    participants, how those participants were to have acted, and the
    goal of the scheme.            Such evidence sufficiently establishes the
    existence of the charged scheme to defraud.                    See, e.g., United
    States v. Colton, 
    231 F.3d 890
    , 901 (4th Cir. 2000).               The fact that
    the other participants to the scheme did not testify is of no
    moment to the jury’s determination that the evidence presented by
    the   Government       sufficiently      established     the   existence    of    the
    scheme, as well as the fact that Lutz acted with the intent to
    defraud the lenders.           In addition, we find sufficient evidence to
    - 4 -
    support the jury’s verdict that Lutz made material false statements
    to a federal agent.
    We review for abuse of discretion the district court’s
    decision to submit a willful blindness instruction to the jury.
    Nelson v. Green Ford, Inc., 
    788 F.2d 205
    , 208 (4th Cir. 1986).
    Here, Lutz expressly denied knowledge that the transactions he was
    closing were fraudulent.    The Government introduced evidence that
    many signs of fraudulent activity existed, including suspicious and
    unusual circumstances associated with the manner in which the real
    estate deals were conducted and closed, which, when coupled with
    Lutz’s stated denial of knowledge of the fraud, fully support the
    district court’s decision to give a willful blindness jury charge.
    Finally, we turn to Lutz’s challenge to the district
    court’s inclusion of $32,738.43 in its restitution order which
    represents   the   loss   attributable    to   a   real   estate   deal,
    specifically, the “Rivermeade property,” which was not part of the
    offense on which Lutz was indicted and convicted.         Specifically,
    Lutz asserts that the evidence of his criminal conduct as to the
    Rivermeade property was insufficient, that if his conduct was
    criminal, the lender was not directly harmed by such conduct, and
    that his conduct was not part of the scheme on which he was
    convicted.   Lutz objected below to the inclusion of the Rivermeade
    property in his restitution order.       There is no dispute that the
    Rivermeade property was not included in the properties on which
    - 5 -
    Lutz was indicted and convicted.     The Government asserts that the
    restitution order is proper because the Rivermeade property loss
    arose “in the course of the scheme” on which Lutz was convicted.
    We review criminal restitution orders for abuse of discretion.
    United States v. Henoud, 
    81 F.3d 484
    , 487 (4th Cir. 1996).
    Contrary   to   the   Government’s   position,   while   the
    Mandatory Victims Restitution Act of 1996 requires that a court
    enter an order of full restitution when the loss is caused by a
    property offense, the order must be limited to the losses to the
    victim(s) that actually are “caused by the offense.” United States
    v. Newsome, 
    322 F.3d 328
    , 341 (4th Cir. 2003). Stated differently,
    “it is the ‘offense of conviction,’ not the ‘relevant conduct,’
    that must be the cause of losses attributable as restitutionary
    liability.” 
    Id.
     (citing Hughey v. United States, 
    495 U.S. 411
    , 418
    (1990)).   Hence, we find that restitution in this case properly is
    tied only to the losses caused by the offense of conviction, and
    that in ordering restitution that included the $32,738.43 loss on
    the Rivermeade property, the district court erred.2
    2
    Additionally, at sentencing, Lutz’s base offense level was
    adjusted upwards four levels under the Sentencing Guidelines based
    on judge-found facts — including two levels for abuse of a position
    of trust, see USSG § 3B1.3 (2003); and two levels for obstruction
    of justice, see id. § 3C1.1(A), (B)(I). Lutz objected to these
    enhancements in the district court pursuant to Blakely v.
    Washington, 
    542 U.S. 296
     (2004) (holding that sentence imposed
    under Washington State sentencing scheme violated Sixth Amendment
    because it was enhanced based on judge-found facts).        In its
    subsequent decision in United States v. Booker, the Supreme Court
    applied its reasoning in Blakely to the Sentencing Guidelines. See
    - 6 -
    Accordingly, we affirm Lutz’s conviction; vacate the
    restitution order and, to the extent Lutz intended to raise Sixth
    Amendment Booker error on appeal, his sentence in its entirety; and
    remand for resentencing consistent with this opinion.   We dispense
    with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
    adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument
    would not aid the decisional process.
    AFFIRMED IN PART,
    VACATED IN PART,
    AND REMANDED
    
    543 U.S. 220
     (2005).     Although it is not clear that Lutz has
    pursued the Booker issue on appeal, his pleadings — as those of a
    pro se litigant — should be liberally construed. See Cox v. City
    of Charleston, 
    416 F.3d 281
    , 288 (4th Cir. 2005). We therefore
    recognize that the district court committed Sixth Amendment error
    under Booker by enhancing Lutz’s sentence based on facts he did not
    admit and the jury did not find.      See, e.g., United States v.
    Alvarado, 
    440 F.3d 191
     (4th Cir. 2006). To the extent that Lutz
    intended to raise the Booker error on appeal, he is entitled to
    resentencing upon remand. See 
    id.
    - 7 -