15‐2224
United States v. Marinello
1 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
2 FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
3 August Term, 2015
4 (Argued: February 11, 2016 Decided: October 14, 2016)
5 Docket No. 15‐2224
6
7 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
8 Appellee,
9 v.
10 CARLO J. MARINELLO, II,
11 Defendant–Appellant.
12
13 Before: POOLER and SACK, Circuit Judges, and FAILLA, District Judge.
14 Defendant‐appellant Carlo J. Marinello, II appeals from an amended
15 judgment of conviction entered against him on July 14, 2015 by the United States
16 District Court for the Western District of New York (William M. Skretny, J.). One
17 of the counts of conviction alleged a violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7212(a)ʹs ʺomnibus
18 clause,ʺ which criminally penalizes one who ʺcorruptly . . . obstructs or impedes,
19 or endeavors to obstruct or impede, the due administration ofʺ the Internal
20 Revenue Code in ways not addressed by other specific provisions of the statute.
Judge Katherine Polk Failla, of the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, sitting by designation.
15‐2224
United States v. Marinello, II
1 The district court denied Marinelloʹs motion for an acquittal or a new trial on this
2 count, concluding that the government was not required to establish a pending
3 Internal Revenue Service action and a defendantʹs knowledge thereof as part of
4 its burden of proof. We agree and conclude that these criteria are not offense
5 elements under the omnibus clause. We further conclude that a violation of this
6 provision may be predicated on an omission, and that the district court did not
7 procedurally err in determining Marinelloʹs sentence. The judgment of the
8 district court is therefore:
9 AFFIRMED.
10 JOSEPH M. LATONA, Buffalo, NY, for
11 Defendant–Appellant.
12 RUSSELL T. IPPOLITO, JR., Assistant United
13 States Attorney, Buffalo, NY, for William J.
14 Hochul, Jr., United States Attorney for the
15 Western District of New York, Appellee.
2
15‐2224
United States v. Marinello, II
1 SACK, Circuit Judge:
2 Defendant‐appellant Carlo J. Marinello, II, a resident of Erie County in
3 western New York State, owned and operated a freight service that couriered
4 items to and from the United States and Canada. From approximately 1992
5 through 2010, Marinello neither kept corporate books or records nor filed
6 personal or corporate income tax returns. Following an investigation by the
7 Internal Revenue Service (the ʺIRSʺ), he was indicted by a grand jury sitting in
8 the United States District Court for the Western District of New York on nine
9 counts of tax‐related offenses that allegedly occurred from 2005 through 2009. A
10 jury found him guilty on all counts. He was sentenced to thirty‐six monthsʹ
11 imprisonment and one year of supervised release, and ordered to pay
12 $351,763.08 to the IRS in restitution.
13 Under one of the counts of conviction, Marinello was charged with
14 violating 26 U.S.C. § 7212(a). One portion of the statute imposes criminal liability
15 on one who ʺcorruptly or by force or threats of force . . . endeavors to intimidate
16 or impede any officer or employee of the United States acting in an official
17 capacity under this title” (i.e., the Internal Revenue Code). Id. Another portion,
18 often referred to as the ʺomnibus clause,ʺ imposes criminal liability on one who
19 ʺin any other way corruptly . . . obstructs or impedes, or endeavors to obstruct or
3
15‐2224
United States v. Marinello, II
1 impede, the due administration of this title.ʺ Id. Marinello was charged with
2 violating the omnibus clause.
3 On appeal, Marinello principally argues that we, like the Sixth Circuit
4 addressing the same issue, should construe the phrase ʺthe due administration of
5 this titleʺ in the omnibus clause to include only a pending IRS action of which a
6 defendant was aware. He contends that his conviction under section 7212(a)
7 cannot stand under this construction because the government offered no
8 evidence at trial that he knew of a pending IRS investigation against him at the
9 time of the actions on which the conviction was based. He also argues that a
10 conviction under the omnibus clause cannot be premised on a defendantʹs
11 omission, as it may have been in the case at bar, and that the district court
12 committed procedural error during the sentencing proceedings.
13 We exercise jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a) and 28 U.S.C. § 1291,
14 and affirm Marinelloʹs conviction and sentence.
15 BACKGROUND
16 Factual Background
17 In 1990, Marinello incorporated Express Courier Group/Buffalo, Inc.
18 (ʺExpress Courierʺ), a New York corporation. Express Courier maintained a
4
15‐2224
United States v. Marinello, II
1 freight service that couriered documents and packages between the United States
2 and Canada. Despite owning and managing the company, Marinello maintained
3 little documentation of his business income or expenses. He shredded or
4 discarded most of the businessʹs records, including bank account statements,
5 employee work statements, gas receipts, and bills. Marinello paid his employees
6 in cash and did not issue them (or himself) tax documents such as familiar Form
7 1099s or Form W‐2s. He often used Express Courierʹs funds for personal
8 purposes, including mortgage payments on his residence (made indirectly
9 through weekly cash contributions to his wife) and monthly payments to his
10 motherʹs senior living center.
11 In December 2004, the IRS received an anonymous letter purporting to
12 outline some of Marinelloʹs business practices and accusing him of tax evasion.
13 IRS Special Agent Angela Klimczak was assigned to investigate those allegations.
14 Upon reviewing its own records, the IRS discovered that, from at least 1992
15 onward, Marinello failed to file personal or corporate income tax returns.
16 Ultimately, Agent Klimczak recommended that the investigation be closed
17 because the IRS could not at that time determine whether the unreported income
18 was significant. Marinello had no knowledge of this investigation.
5
15‐2224
United States v. Marinello, II
1 In 2005, Marinello sought the advice of counsel, whom he informed of his
2 failure to file his tax returns. Counsel told Marinello that this failure to file was
3 improper and referred him to an accounting firm for a consultation. Allan
4 Wiegley, a certified public accountant at that firm, told Marinello that he needed
5 to provide records of business receipts and expenses in order to pay corporate
6 taxes with respect to Express Courier and its business. Marinello was unable to
7 do so: He had destroyed or failed to keep the documents.
8 Marinello met with Wiegley again the following year to discuss a different
9 matter. During the meeting, Marinello stated that he had made no progress in
10 gathering Express Courierʹs business records. Wiegley declined to enter into a
11 contract to perform accounting services for Express Courier or Marinello because
12 there was inadequate documentation for him to prepare a corporate tax return.
13 Despite the advice from counsel and two meetings with Wiegley, Marinello did
14 not begin maintaining books and records for Express Courier.
6
15‐2224
United States v. Marinello, II
1 In each of the years 2005 through 2008, Express Courier had generated
2 annual total gross receipts of between $200,718.88 and $445,184. During each of
3 those years, Marinello took approximately $26,000 to $50,000 from Express
4 Courierʹs business account and spent it in payment of his personal expenses.
5 The IRS re‐opened its investigation of Marinello in 2009. On June 1, 2009,
6 Agent Klimczak conducted an interview of Marinello at his home. He told her
7 that he could not recall the last time he had filed an income tax return. He
8 initially maintained that he did not file tax returns because he thought they were
9 not required for persons who made less than $1,000 per year. He eventually
10 admitted that he had earned more than that amount annually and should have
11 paid taxes, but ʺnever got around to it.ʺ Testimony of Angela Klimczak, August
12 6, 2014, Trial Transcript (ʺTrial Tr.ʺ) at 172 (Appʹx 181). He stated that he used
13 business income (by cashing checks from Express Courierʹs customers and
14 depositing a portion of them into his personal bank account) as well as his
15 business bank account to pay for personal expenses. He confirmed that he
16 shredded bank statements and that he did not keep track of Express Courierʹs
17 income or expenses. He also remembered telling an accountant that he shredded
18 most of his business records. Marinello explained that he destroyed these
7
15‐2224
United States v. Marinello, II
1 documents because ʺthatʹs what [he had] been doing all alongʺ and that he ʺtook
2 the easy way out.ʺ Id. at 194 (Appʹx 203).
3 Procedural History
4 On October 16, 2012, in the United States District Court for the Western
5 District of New York, Marinello was charged in a superseding indictment with
6 corruptly endeavoring to obstruct and impede the due administration of the
7 Internal Revenue laws, in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7212(a) (Count One), and
8 willfully failing to file individual and corporate tax returns for calendar years
9 2005 through 2008, in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7203 (Counts Two through Nine).
10 Count One alleged that Marinello had violated section 7212(a) by, ʺamong other
11 thing[s]ʺ:
12 (1) failing to maintain corporate books and records for
13 [Express Courier] of which the defendant was an
14 employee, officer, owner and operator;
15 (2) failing to provide the defendantʹs accountant with
16 complete and accurate information related to the
17 defendantʹs personal income and the income of
18 Express Courier;
19 (3) destroying, shredding and discarding business
20 records of Express Courier;
21 (4) cashing business checks received by Express Courier
22 for services rendered;
8
15‐2224
United States v. Marinello, II
1 (5) hiding income earned by Express Courier in
2 personal and other non‐business bank accounts;
3 (6) transferring assets to a nominee;
4 (7) paying employees of Express Courier with cash; and
5 (8) using business receipts and money from business
6 accounts to pay personal expenses, including the
7 mortgage for the residence in which the defendant
8 resided and expenses related to the defendantʹs
9 motherʹs care at a senior living center.
10 Superseding Indictment, dated October 16, 2012, at 1‐2 (Appʹx 75‐76) (formatting
11 altered).1
12 Before trial, Marinello sought an instruction that ʺthe jury . . . be
13 unanimous on at least one of the means under which the government . . . alleged
14 [that] [he] ha[d] violated [title 26 section 7212(a)]ʺ in order to convict him of that
15 offense. Defendantʹs Requested Jury Instruction, dated September 25, 2012, at 1
16 (Appʹx 41). If any juror harbored a reasonable doubt on any one of the means
17 alleged, the instruction required an acquittal on Count One. Id. The government
The original indictment alleged a ninth means of corrupt obstruction under Count
1
One: ʺfailing to file with the [IRS] personal income tax returns and corporate tax returns
for Express Courier.ʺ Indictment, dated February 14, 2012, at 2 (Appʹx 25). In response
to Marinelloʹs motion to strike this allegation as duplicitous of the remaining counts of
the indictment, the government filed the superseding indictment, which removed it.
9
15‐2224
United States v. Marinello, II
1 opposed this proposal as a misstatement of the law, contending that it was not
2 required to prove all of the means specified in Count One.
3 At a pre‐trial conference, the district court (William M. Skretny, Judge)
4 reserved ruling on the proposed jury instruction until trial. During that
5 conference, Marinelloʹs counsel represented that there was ʺno question [that
6 Marinello] did not file his tax returns, corporate and personal,ʺ and that he had
7 advised Marinello ʺto take a pleaʺ to Counts Two through Nine. See Transcript
8 of pre‐trial conference, October 4, 2012, at 2 (Appʹx 60). But Marinello declined to
9 plead guilty to Count One, a felony. Appʹx 60‐61.
10 Marinello subsequently moved for submission to the jury of a special
11 verdict form requiring the jury to indicate whether it found him guilty or not
12 guilty regarding each of the eight means of violating section 7212(a) alleged in
13 Count One of the superseding indictment. By text order, the district court
14 deferred ruling on this request until trial.
15 At trial, defense counsel conceded that Marinello did not file his tax
16 returns2 but argued that Marinello could not be convicted on Count One because
The parties further stipulated that Marinello did not file with the IRS personal tax
2
returns or corporate tax returns for Express Courier for tax periods 1992 through 2010.
August 6, 2014 Trial Tr. at 64 (Appʹx 140).
10
15‐2224
United States v. Marinello, II
1 he lacked the requisite criminal intent under section 7212(a), inasmuch as he did
2 not ʺcorruptlyʺ obstruct or impede the administration of the Internal Revenue
3 Code.3 Defense counsel further argued that Marinello must have affirmatively
4 ʺdo[ne] something,ʺ ʺ[l]ike file a phony return,ʺ to be guilty of this offense.
5 August 6, 2014 Trial Tr. at 55 (Appʹx 132).
6 Over Marinelloʹs objection, the district court declined to instruct the jury
7 that it had to unanimously agree on at least one of the eight specified means by
8 which Marinello allegedly violated section 7212(a) to find him guilty under that
9 section. No special verdict form was provided to the jury with respect to this
10 offense. Instead, the district court instructed the jury as to the underlying means
11 contained in Count One as follows:
12 [T]he indictment alleges multiple methods in which the
13 crime [of violating section 7212(a)ʹs omnibus clause] can
14 be committed, but the government does not have to
15 prove all of them for you to return a guilty verdict on
16 this charge. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt of any
17 one of the obstructive acts listed in the indictment is
18 enough. To return a guilty verdict, all 12 of you must
19 agree that at least one of these has been proved.
As to the remaining counts, Marinello argued that he was not guilty because the
3
government could not prove he ʺwillfullyʺ failed to file his tax returns. August 6, 2014
Trial Tr. at 50 (Appʹx 127). See 26 U.S.C. § 7203 (ʺAny person required under this title
. . . to make a return . . . who willfully fails to . . . make such return . . . shall, in addition
to other penalties provided by law, be guilty of a misdemeanor . . . .ʺ).
11
15‐2224
United States v. Marinello, II
1 However, all of you need not agree that the same one
2 has been proved.
3 August 11, 2014 Trial Tr. at 471 (Appʹx 433).
4 The jury convicted Marinello on all counts. He then moved for a judgment
5 of acquittal or a new trial under Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 29 and 33,
6 respectively, which the government opposed.4 Marinello argued, inter alia, that
7 the phrase ʺthe due administration of this titleʺ in section 7212(a) refers
8 exclusively to pending IRS investigations, and that a defendant may be convicted
9 under the statute only if he knowingly interferes with such an investigation.
10 Employing that construction of the statute, which the Sixth Circuit had
11 previously adopted in United States v. Kassouf, 144 F.3d 952 (6th Cir. 1998),
12 Marinello contended that he should be acquitted because there was no evidence
13 that he had become aware of the IRSʹs investigation until his June 1, 2009,
14 interview with Agent Klimczak, which occurred after the offense conduct alleged
15 in the superseding indictment had already taken place.
16 The district court declined to construe section 7212(a) that narrowly.
17 Noting that a later panel of the Sixth Circuit had limited Kassouf to its facts, and
Before the defense rested at trial, Marinello also made a motion pursuant to Rule 29,
4
which was denied by oral order.
12
15‐2224
United States v. Marinello, II
1 that other courts had declined to follow the Kassouf courtʹs reasoning, the district
2 court concluded that ʺ[k]nowledge of a pending [IRS] investigation is not an
3 essential element of the crime.ʺ Decision and Order at 6‐7, United States v.
4 Marinello, No. 12 Cr. 53S (W.D.N.Y. June 26, 2015) (Appʹx 549‐50) (citing United
5 States v. Bowman, 173 F.3d 595, 600 (6th Cir. 1999) and United States v. Willner, No.
6 07 Cr. 183(GEL), 2007 WL 2963711, at *4, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 75597, at *10‐11
7 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 11, 2007) (collecting cases)). In the courtʹs view, ʺ[t]he jury was
8 entitled to infer . . . that Marinello acted corruptly to impede or obstruct the due
9 administration of the Internal Revenue lawsʺ by otherwise hindering the
10 collection of taxes due. Id. at 6 (Appʹx 549).
11 In the defendantʹs Presentence Investigation Report (the ʺPSRʺ), the
12 Probation Office calculated the total tax loss from Marinelloʹs activities as
13 approximately $598,215.53 by applying a percentage‐based formula to his gross
14 income from 2005 through 2008. See U.S. Sentencing Guidelines
15 Manual (hereinafter, ʺU.S.S.G.ʺ) § 2T1.1(c)(2)(A) (U.S. Sentencing Commʹn 2014)
16 (indicating that this formula should be used ʺunless a more accurate
17 determination of the tax loss can be madeʺ). The total tax loss resulted in a base
18 offense level of twenty. See U.S.S.G. §§ 2T1.1(a)(1), 2T4.1(H)‐(I) (specifying, for
13
15‐2224
United States v. Marinello, II
1 offenses involving willful failure to file returns, a base offense level of 20 where
2 the tax loss is ʺ[m]ore than $400,000ʺ but not more than $1,000,000). A two‐level
3 enhancement to the base offense level was applied because Marinelloʹs
4 conviction under Count One implicated an adjustment for obstructing or
5 impeding the administration of justice. See U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1. Marinello was also
6 deemed ineligible for the two‐level reduction for acceptance of responsibility.
7 See U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1(a). In the view of the Probation Office, Marinello had not
8 clearly demonstrated an acceptance of responsibility for his offense conduct in
9 part because he continued to decline to accept responsibility for the obstruction
10 charge and insisted there was a legal basis to contest this issue. Thus, with a
11 criminal history category of one and a total offense level of twenty‐two,
12 Marinelloʹs advisory Guidelines range for sentencing was forty‐one to fifty‐one
13 months. The Probation Office also determined that Marinello owed the IRS
14 $331,348.08 in corporate income taxes and $20,415 in personal income taxes from
15 2005 to 2008, and recommended that those amounts be imposed by the courtʹs
16 restitution order.
17 Marinello filed objections to the findings in the PSR, two of which are
18 relevant to this appeal. First, he argued that the tax loss and restitution amounts
14
15‐2224
United States v. Marinello, II
1 were incorrectly calculated. According to Marinello, ʺa more accurate
2 determination of tax loss c[ould] be madeʺ based on the actual corporate and
3 personal tax returns he ultimately filed, years after the fact, for tax years 2005
4 through 2008. Objections to the [PSR] and Statement With Respect to Sentencing
5 Factors, dated January 14, 2015, at 2‐3 (Appʹx 514‐15) (quoting U.S.S.G.
6 § 2T1.1(c)(2)(A) (emphasis removed)). These returns reflected a tax loss of only
7 $48,890, which would have yielded a base offense level of fourteen instead of
8 twenty. See U.S.S.G. § 2T4.1(E). Marinello further asserted that any restitution
9 was also capped at the $48,890 amount.
10 Second, Marinello urged that the two‐level reduction for acceptance of
11 responsibility was applicable.5 He argued that his conduct merited the reduction
12 because he admitted to keeping poor business records and not paying his taxes;
13 was previously willing to plead to the misdemeanor Counts Two through Nine;
14 and proceeded to trial only to preserve a dispute concerning whether he could be
15 held criminally liable under the section 7212(a) obstruction charge.
Marinello did not argue that he was eligible for an additional one‐level reduction
5
under U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1(b), nor does he make any argument with respect to this
provision on appeal.
15
15‐2224
United States v. Marinello, II
1 In response, the government asserted that there were a variety of
2 inaccuracies in Marinelloʹs proffered tax returns (such as using an incorrect filing
3 status and improperly claiming his mother as a dependent), which rendered
4 them unreliable for purposes of calculating either an alternative tax loss or
5 restitution amount. The government further contended that the two‐level
6 reduction for acceptance of responsibility was inapplicable because Marinello
7 was evasive during his discussions with Agent Klimczak at the June 1, 2009,
8 interview, disputed that he acted with the requisite mens rea to be convicted
9 under Count One, and stated at the time the PSR was prepared that he did not
10 accept responsibility for the obstruction charge.
11 In his reply brief, Marinello did not address any of the alleged inaccuracies
12 the government highlighted in his tax returns. He continued to argue, however,
13 that he deserved the reduction for acceptance of responsibility.
14 During Marinelloʹs sentencing proceedings, the district court concluded
15 that Marinelloʹs alternative calculation of the tax loss and restitution at issue
16 could not be used in light of the discrepancies the government identified in his
17 proffered tax returns. The court therefore adopted the Probation Officeʹs
18 calculations of those figures and denied Marinelloʹs first objection. His second
16
15‐2224
United States v. Marinello, II
1 objection concerning the acceptance of responsibility reduction was also denied
2 based on the courtʹs view that his case was not one of the ʺrareʺ situations
3 specified in the Guidelines where the reduction is appropriate even though the
4 defendant exercised his constitutional right to proceed to trial. Transcript of
5 Sentencing (ʺSentencing Tr.ʺ), July 1, 2015, at 12 (Appʹx 566) (applying U.S.S.G.
6 § 3E1.1 cmt. 2).
7 Marinello addressed the court prior to sentencing. He stated that he
8 realized he had made a mistake, but that he did not accept the over half million
9 dollar tax loss calculation by ʺa probation officer who probably without using an
10 adding machine canʹt add a column of numbers together.ʺ Id. at 19 (Appʹx 573).
11 After the district court observed that Marinello ʺexpressed no remorse
12 whatsoever,ʺ Marinello responded:
13 I have complete remorse. I have absolutely complete
14 remorse. I was overwhelmed by the job. I was
15 overwhelmed by everything. Business went—turned
16 south. And I tried to keep the company afloat.
17 Iʹm 69 years of age. I should be retired, and Iʹm
18 working every day of the week. Every month the [IRS]
19 gets a check.
17
15‐2224
United States v. Marinello, II
1 Id. at 20 (Appʹx 574). The government underscored that the defendantʹs
2 comments demonstrated that he clearly did not accept responsibility for his
3 actions.
4 Adopting the criminal history category, total offense level, and Guidelines
5 range recommended by the Probation Office, the district court imposed a below‐
6 Guidelines sentence of thirty‐six monthsʹ imprisonment and one year of
7 supervised release. The district court also imposed restitution in the amount of
8 $351,763.08, as recommended by the Probation Office. Following the entry of an
9 amended judgment, this timely appeal followed.
10 DISCUSSION
11 Marinello makes three arguments on appeal. First, he urges us to adopt
12 the Sixth Circuitʹs interpretation of the phrase ʺthe due administration of this
13 titleʺ in section 7212(a), as set forth in United States v. Kassouf, 144 F.3d 952 (6th
14 Cir. 1998), which requires the prosecution to establish the defendantʹs knowledge
15 of a pending IRS action6 in order to support a conviction under the omnibus
16 clause. Marinello seeks reversal of his conviction on Count One and dismissal of
Marinelloʹs argument presumably encompasses any pending IRS action and not only
6
an IRS investigation or proceeding concerning the defendant charged with the omnibus
clause violation, although he does not clarify this point in his appellate briefs.
18
15‐2224
United States v. Marinello, II
1 that count from the superseding indictment because there is no evidence that he
2 knew of the IRSʹs investigation while engaging in the offense conduct alleged.
3 Second, Marinello contends that a violation of the omnibus clause must be
4 premised on an underlying affirmative act, not on an omission. Because the
5 district court did not charge the jury with the unanimity instruction he requested
6 or provide it with the special verdict form he suggested, he maintains that his
7 conviction on Count One could have been improperly based on either of the two
8 omissions alleged in the indictment: failure to keep Express Courierʹs books and
9 records, and failure to provide complete records of personal and corporate
10 income to his accountant. He seeks reversal and remand for a new trial on that
11 ground if his conviction under section 7212(a) is not otherwise vacated.
12 Third, Marinello argues that vacatur and remand for resentencing is
13 required because the district court procedurally erred in imposing his sentence.
14 In his view, the district court impermissibly rejected his proffered tax returns as a
15 measure of the tax loss and restitution amounts without further inquiry by way
16 of an evidentiary hearing or supplemental briefing. He also asserts that he was
17 entitled to the two‐level reduction to his base offense level for acceptance of
19
15‐2224
United States v. Marinello, II
1 responsibility because he offered to plead guilty to the eight counts of willful
2 failure to file tax returns.
3 I. Standard of Review
4 A district courtʹs interpretation of a federal criminal statute is a question of
5 law subject to de novo review by the Court of Appeals. United States v. Aleynikov,
6 676 F.3d 71, 76 (2d Cir. 2012). A defendantʹs challenge to a jury instruction is also
7 reviewed de novo. United States v. Sabhnani, 599 F.3d 215, 237 (2d Cir. 2010). We
8 will conclude that the district court committed reversible error if its instruction
9 ʺeither fails to adequately inform the jury of the law, or misleads the jury as to
10 the correct legal standard.ʺ Id. (quoting United States v. Quattrone, 441 F.3d 153,
11 177 (2d Cir. 2006)).
12 We review the procedural reasonableness of a sentence ʺunder a
13 ʹdeferential abuse‐of‐discretion standard.ʹʺ United States v. Jesurum, 819 F.3d 667,
14 670 (2d Cir. 2016) (quoting Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007)). A district
15 court commits procedural error if, as relevant here, it ʺfails to calculate (or
16 improperly calculates) the Sentencing Guidelines rangeʺ or ʺselects a sentence
17 based on clearly erroneous facts.ʺ United States v. Chu, 714 F.3d 742, 746 (2d Cir.
18 2013) (quoting United States v. Robinson, 702 F.3d 22, 38 (2d Cir. 2012)). Decisions
20
15‐2224
United States v. Marinello, II
1 as to the procedures used to resolve sentencing disputes, including disputes
2 concerning an order of restitution, are reviewed for abuse of discretion, United
3 States v. Maurer, 226 F.3d 150, 151‐52 (2d Cir. 2000) (per curiam) (citing United
4 States v. Slevin, 106 F.3d 1086, 1091 (2d Cir. 1996)), and ʺare within the district
5 courtʹs discretion so long as the defendant is given an adequate opportunity to
6 present his position,ʺ Sabhnani, 599 F.3d at 257‐58.
7 II. A Pending IRS Action and a Defendantʹs Knowledge of That Action
8 Are Not Offense Elements Under 26 U.S.C. § 7212(a)ʹs Omnibus
9 Clause
10 Section 7212(a) criminalizes certain ʺ[a]ttempts to interfere with [the]
11 administration of internal revenue laws.ʺ Under section 7212(a),
12 [w]hoever [1] corruptly or by force or threats of force
13 (including any threatening letter or communication)
14 endeavors to intimidate or impede any officer or
15 employee of the United States acting in an official
16 capacity under this title, or [2] in any other way corruptly
17 or by force or threats of force (including any threatening
18 letter or communication) obstructs or impedes, or
19 endeavors to obstruct or impede, the due administration of
20 this title, shall, upon conviction thereof, be [fined or
21 imprisoned, or both].
22 26 U.S.C. § 7212(a) (emphases added). The first clause addresses conduct
23 specifically directed toward federal officers or employees in the discharge of
24 their duties under Title 26 of the United States Code—the Internal Revenue
21
15‐2224
United States v. Marinello, II
1 Code. The second clause, the ʺomnibus clause,ʺ is a catch‐all provision that
2 criminalizes ʺany other wayʺ of corruptly obstructing or impeding the due
3 administration of the Internal Revenue Code. The term ʺcorruptlyʺ within the
4 meaning of this section encompasses conduct that has ʺthe intent to secure an
5 unlawful advantage or benefit either for oneʹs self or for another.ʺ United States
6 v. Parse, 789 F.3d 83, 121 (2d Cir. 2015) (quoting United States v. Kelly, 147 F.3d
7 172, 177 (2d Cir. 1998)).
8 Marinello asks that we conclude, as the Sixth Circuit did in Kassouf, that
9 the statutory phrase ʺthe due administration of this titleʺ under the omnibus
10 clause refers exclusively to pending IRS investigations or proceedings, of which a
11 defendant must have knowledge in order to corruptly obstruct or impede them.
12 For the reasons that follow, we decline to adopt this construction.
13 In Kassouf, the defendant was charged with corruptly endeavoring to
14 obstruct and impede the due administration of the tax laws, in violation of
15 section 7212(a). 144 F.3d at 953. He allegedly failed to maintain partnership
16 books and records, transferred business funds into various bank accounts for
17 personal expenditures, and filed false tax returns that did not disclose substantial
18 assets. Id. at 953 & n.1. The district court granted the defendantʹs motion to
22
15‐2224
United States v. Marinello, II
1 dismiss the section 7212(a) count from the indictment for failure to state an
2 offense, finding that the government had not alleged as elements of the crime
3 that the defendant had knowledge of a pending IRS proceeding or investigation.
4 See id. at 954. On appeal, the Sixth Circuit affirmed, agreeing with the district
5 court that ʺdue administration of the Title requires some pending IRS actionʺ—
6 such as ʺsubpoenas, audits or criminal tax investigationsʺ—ʺof which the
7 defendant was aware.ʺ Id. at 957 & n.2.
8 The Sixth Circuit based its conclusion on a comparison of the omnibus
9 clause with another statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1503. See id. at 957. Section 1503, entitled
10 ʺInfluencing or injuring officer or juror generally,ʺ provides in relevant part:
11 Whoever corruptly, or by threats or force, or by any
12 threatening letter or communication, endeavors to
13 influence, intimidate, or impede any grand or petit
14 juror, or officer in or of any court of the United States,
15 or officer who may be serving at any examination or
16 other proceeding before any United States magistrate
17 judge or other committing magistrate, in the discharge
18 of his duty, or injures any such grand or petit juror in
19 his person or property on account of any verdict or
20 indictment assented to by him, or on account of his
21 being or having been such juror, or injures any such
22 officer, magistrate judge, or other committing
23 magistrate in his person or property on account of the
24 performance of his official duties, or corruptly or by
25 threats or force, or by any threatening letter or
26 communication, influences, obstructs, or impedes, or
23
15‐2224
United States v. Marinello, II
1 endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede, the due
2 administration of justice, shall be punished as provided in
3 subsection (b).
4 18 U.S.C. § 1503(a) (emphasis added). Relying on the similarities between the
5 texts of section 1503(a) and section 7212(a), the Sixth Circuit consulted case law
6 interpreting section 1503 for guidance on how to construe ʺthe due
7 administration of this titleʺ under section 7212(a). See Kassouf, 147 F.3d at 956‐58.
8 In particular, the Sixth Circuit looked to United States v. Aguilar, 515 U.S. 593
9 (1995), a decision addressing the scope of offense conduct covered by section
10 1503(a)ʹs broad prohibition on corrupt efforts to influence, obstruct, or impede
11 the due administration of justice, see id. at 598‐600. In Aguilar, the Supreme Court
12 limited this provisionʹs reach by imposing ʺa ʹnexusʹ requirementʺ: To be found
13 guilty of this offense, the ʺaction taken by the accused must be with an intent to
14 influence judicial or grand jury proceedings.ʺ Id. at 599; see also id. (describing
15 the nexus requirement as ʺa relationship in time, causation, or logicʺ between the
16 defendantʹs offense conduct and a judicial proceeding). In so deciding, the
17 Supreme Court appeared to assume that ʺthe due administration of justiceʺ
18 under section 1503(a) only applied to pending grand jury or judicial proceedings,
24
15‐2224
United States v. Marinello, II
1 in line with the way courts have previously read this statutory phrase.7 See id.
2 The Supreme Courtʹs decision was motivated by a concern that section 1503(a)
3 could sweep too broadly: Not just ʺany act, done with the intent to obstruct the
4 due administration of justice, is sufficient to impose criminal liabilityʺ; otherwise,
5 the connection between a defendantʹs corrupt endeavors and a judicial
6 proceeding could be too attenuated. See id. at 602 (emphasis in original) (ellipsis
7 and internal quotation marks removed). Instead, in order to be convicted of
8 corruptly interfering with the due administration of justice under section 1503(a),
9 a defendant must be aware that his conduct is ʺlikely to affect the judicial
10 proceeding.ʺ Id. at 599.
11 Deeming Aguilarʹs analysis of section 1503(a) to be instructive, including
12 the Supreme Courtʹs implicit adoption of the longstanding reading of ʺthe due
13 administration of justice,ʺ8 the Sixth Circuit interpreted by analogy ʺthe due
14 administration of this titleʺ under section 7212(a) to require, as offense elements,
See, e.g., United States v. Bashaw, 982 F.2d 168, 170 (6th Cir. 1992) (ʺBecause section
7
1503 is intended to protect the administration of justice in federal court and those
participating therein, due administration of justice has been interpreted as extending
only to pending judicial proceedings.ʺ (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)).
8 The independent meaning of ʺthe due administration of justice,ʺ however, was never
at issue in Aguilar—in fact, the defendant there was charged with ʺcorruptly
endeavor[ing] to influence, obstruct, and impede [a] grand jury investigation.ʺ See id. at
598‐99 (emphasis added).
25
15‐2224
United States v. Marinello, II
1 that a defendant (1) have knowledge of (2) ʺsome pending IRS action.ʺ Kassouf,
2 144 F.3d at 956‐57. Noting again the similar language contained in the two
3 statutes, the court used a canon of construction to find that this similarity
4 permitted it to infer that Congress meant for section 7212(a) to apply to
5 analogous situations. See id. at 957‐58 (applying the ʺcanon of statutory
6 construction that courts will presume that Congress knew of the prevailing law
7 when it enacted the statuteʺ at issue). The court also expressed its concern that,
8 were the omnibus clause not limited to pending IRS actions, a defendant could
9 be subject to undefined ʺliability for conduct which was legal (such as failure to
10 maintain records) and occurred long before an IRS audit, or even a tax return
11 was filed.ʺ Id. at 957; see also id. at 958 (ʺ[I]t would be highly speculative to find
12 conduct such as the destruction of records, which might or might not be needed,
13 in an audit which might or might not ever occur, is sufficient to make out an
14 omnibus clause violation.ʺ (citation omitted)). The court then affirmed the
15 dismissal of the disputed count of the indictment on the basis of the rule it had
16 enunciated.9 Id. at 960.
Judge Daughtrey dissented from the majorityʹs conclusion in this regard, noting that
9
no other circuit at the time had required that a defendant knowingly obstruct or impede
26
15‐2224
United States v. Marinello, II
1 We think the Sixth Circuitʹs analogy is inapposite. To begin with, the text
2 of section 1503(a) is distinguishable from section 7212(a) in at least two ways.
3 First, section 1503(a)ʹs statutory language focuses principally on grand jury or
4 judicial proceedings. Indeed, its prohibition of corrupt endeavors to influence,
5 obstruct, or impede the due administration of justice ʺfollows a long list of
6 specific prohibitions of conduct that interferes with actual judicial proceedings,ʺ
7 United States v. Wood, 384 F. Appʹx 698, 704 (10th Cir. 2010), cert. denied, 562 U.S.
8 1225 (2011); accord Willner, 2007 WL 2963711, at *4, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 75597, at
9 *11; see also United States v. Sorensen, 801 F.3d 1217, 1232 (10th Cir. 2015)
10 (endorsing the reasoning in Wood), cert. denied, 136 S. Ct. 1163 (2016). This list—
11 which specifically mentions jurors, officers of the court, magistrate judges, and
a pending IRS action in order to be convicted under section 7212(a)ʹs omnibus clause.
Kassouf, 144 F.3d at 960‐61 (Daughtrey, J., dissenting in part).
Shortly after Kassouf was decided, another panel of the Sixth Circuit suggested its
disapproval of this rule by concluding that ʺKassouf must be limited to its precise
holding and facts.ʺ See Bowman, 173 F.3d at 600; see also id. at 599‐600 (deciding that ʺan
individualʹs deliberate filing of false forms with the IRS specifically for the purpose of
causing the IRS to initiate action against a taxpayer is encompassed within § 7212(a)ʹs
proscribed conduct,ʺ even though ʺno IRS proceeding or investigation was underwayʺ
when the defendant engaged in the underlying offense conduct). However, the court
has more recently stated to the contrary that the rule articulated in Kassouf remains the
law of the Sixth Circuit. See United States v. Miner, 774 F.3d 336, 345 (6th Cir. 2014)
(ʺ[P]ost‐Kassouf and post‐Bowman, a defendant may not be convicted under the omnibus
clause unless he is ʹacting in response to some pending IRS action of which [he is]
aware.ʹʺ (second brackets in original) (quoting United States v. McBride, 362 F.3d 360, 372
(6th Cir. 2004))), cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 2060 (2015).
27
15‐2224
United States v. Marinello, II
1 committing magistrates, as well as ʺexamination[s] or other proceeding[s]ʺ before
2 a magistrate judge or committing magistrate, ʺverdict[s],ʺ and ʺindictment[s]ʺ—
3 supports a reading that tethers the ʺdue administration of justiceʺ to actual grand
4 jury or judicial proceedings. See 18 U.S.C. § 1503(a). By contrast, section 7212(a)
5 does not contain any such reference to IRS actions, investigations, or proceedings
6 that would support analogizing it to section 1503(a). Instead, the first part of
7 section 7212(a) refers broadly to attempts to interfere with officers or employees
8 ʺacting in an official capacityʺ under the tax code, 26 U.S.C. § 7212(a), which
9 suggests that the omnibus provision similarly applies to the full range of these
10 individualsʹ official duties.
11 Second, and most apparent, the statutes employ different statutory
12 phrases: ʺthe due administration of justice,ʺ 18 U.S.C. § 1503(a) (emphasis added),
13 and ʺthe due administration of this title,ʺ 26 U.S.C. § 7212(a) (emphasis added).
14 This difference indicates that the statutes carry different meanings. See Kassouf,
15 144 F.3d at 960 (Daughtrey, J., dissenting in part) (ʺ[I]f Congress wished 26 U.S.C.
16 § 7212(a) to be interpreted in an identical fashion, identical language would have
17 been inserted into that statute.ʺ). The plain language of section 7212(a)ʹs
18 omnibus clause ʺprohibits any effort to obstruct the administration of the tax code,
28
15‐2224
United States v. Marinello, II
1 not merely of investigations and proceedings conducted by the tax authorities.ʺ
2 Willner, 2007 WL 2963711, at *5, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 75597, at *12 (emphasis in
3 original). As the Sixth Circuit noted in Kassouf, the administration of the Internal
4 Revenue Code ʺencompass[es] a vast range of activitiesʺ: ʺmailing out internal
5 revenue forms; answering taxpayersʹ inquiries; receiving, processing, recording
6 and maintaining tax returns, payments and other taxpayers[ʹ] submissions; as
7 well as monitoring taxpayersʹ compliance with their obligations.ʺ 144 F.3d at
8 956; see also Sorensen, 801 F.3d at 1232 (ʺ[T]he IRS duly administers the internal‐
9 revenue laws . . . [by] carrying out its lawful functions to ascertain income[ and
10 to] compute, assess, and collect income taxes[.]ʺ (internal quotation marks and
11 citation omitted)). In light of these responsibilities, it is apparent that ʺthe IRS
12 does duly administer the tax laws even before initiating a proceeding.ʺ Sorensen,
13 801 F.3d at 1232; see Direct Mktg. Assʹn v. Brohl, 135 S. Ct. 1124, 1129 (2015) (ʺ[T]he
14 Federal Tax Code has long treated information gathering as a phase of tax
15 administration procedure that occurs before assessment, levy, or collection.ʺ).
16 Thus, it is possible to violate section 7212(a) by corruptly obstructing or
17 impeding the due administration of the Internal Revenue Code ʺwithout an
29
15‐2224
United States v. Marinello, II
1 awareness of a particular [IRS] action or investigationʺ (for instance, ʺby
2 thwarting the annual reporting of incomeʺ). Wood, 384 F. Appʹx at 704.
3 Section 1503ʹs legislative history also makes clear that Congress intended
4 ʺthe due administration of justiceʺ to refer only to grand jury or judicial
5 proceedings; however, no comparable legislative history points to interpreting
6 ʺthe due administration of this titleʺ under section 7212(a) in a similar manner. A
7 predecessor version of section 1503 criminalized ʺcorrupt[] endeavors to
8 influence, intimidate, or impede any witness or officer in any court of the United
9 States in the discharge of his duty, or corrupt[] . . . endeavors to obstruct or
10 impede[] the due administration of justice therein.ʺ See Pettibone v. United States,
11 148 U.S. 197, 202 (1893) (emphases added) (quoting Rev. Stat., Tit. LXX, ch. 4,
12 § 5399 (2d ed. 1878)); see also Aguilar, 515 U.S. at 599 (noting that Pettibone
13 ʺconstru[ed] the predecessor statute to § 1503ʺ). Although the word ʺthereinʺ has
14 since been removed from section 1503(a), there is no indication by Congress that,
15 in so doing, it intended to fundamentally alter the statuteʹs meaning. See Willner,
16 2007 WL 2963711, at *4, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 75597, at *12 (ʺNothing about the
17 history of revision of [section 1503] . . . indicates that the elimination of the last
18 word [ʹthereinʹ] was intended to affect the meaning.ʺ).
30
15‐2224
United States v. Marinello, II
1 In addition to what we think is a mistaken analogy to section 1503(a), we
2 find unpersuasive the vagueness or overbreadth concern identified in Kassouf in
3 support of that courtʹs construction of the omnibus clause. The Sixth Circuit
4 narrowly interpreted ʺthe due administration of this titleʺ under section 7212(a)
5 in part based on a concern that, were proof of a defendantʹs awareness of a
6 pending IRS action not otherwise required, a defendant could be subject to
7 punishment for engaging in lawful conduct. See Kassouf, 144 F.3d at 957‐58. But
8 we have already rejected a similar challenge to section 7212(a) on grounds of
9 vagueness and overbreadth. See Kelly, 147 F.3d at 176 (agreeing with five other
10 circuits concluding that the use of the term ʺcorruptlyʺ in section 7212(a) does not
11 render this provision unconstitutionally vague or overbroad (citing United States
12 v. Brennick, 908 F. Supp. 1004, 1010‐13 (D. Mass. 1995))). Moreover, other courts,
13 including the Sixth Circuit, have decided that section 7212(a)ʹs ʺmens rea
14 requirementʺ sufficiently ʺrestricts the omnibus clauseʹs reach only to conduct
15 that is committed ʹcorruptly.ʹʺ United States v. Miner, 774 F.3d 336, 347 (6th Cir.
16 2014) (collecting cases), cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 2060 (2015).10
To the extent Kassouf based its vagueness or overbreadth concern on the Supreme
10
Courtʹs analysis in Aguilar, we note that the reliance is likely misplaced. In fashioning
the nexus requirement previously discussed, the Supreme Court suggested that its
31
15‐2224
United States v. Marinello, II
1 For those reasons, we decline Marinelloʹs invitation to adopt the Kassouf
2 rule. Instead, we join three of our sister circuits in concluding that section
3 7212(a)ʹs omnibus clause criminalizes corrupt interference with an official effort
4 to administer the tax code, and not merely a known IRS investigation. See
5 Sorensen, 801 F.3d at 1232 (disagreeing with Kassouf because section 1503(a) and
6 section 7212(a) ʺare [in]sufficiently similar to apply Aguilarʹs reasoning to
7 § 7212(a)ʺ); United States v. Floyd, 740 F.3d 22, 32 & n.4 (1st Cir.) (determining that
8 ʺ[a] conviction for violation of section 7212(a) does not require proof of either a
9 tax deficiency or an ongoing audit,ʺ and rejecting Kassouf (citations omitted)),
10 cert. denied sub nom. Dion v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 124 (2014); United States v.
11 Massey, 419 F.3d 1008, 1010 (9th Cir. 2005) (stating that ʺthe government need not
interpretation of the term ʺcorruptlyʺ under section 1503(a) adequately addressed any
potential problems of overbreadth, inasmuch as a defendant must be aware that his
conduct is ʺlikely to affect the judicial proceeding.ʺ See 515 U.S. at 599; see also id. at 602
(concluding that, ʺif [a man] knew of a pending investigation and lied to his wife about
his whereabouts at the time of the crime, thinking that an FBI agent might decide to
interview her and that she might in turn be influenced in her statement to the agent by
her husbandʹs false account of his whereabouts,ʺ the husband could not be convicted
under section 1503 because his knowledge of the likely effect on a judicial proceeding is
unclear). By raising the specter that the ʺdue administrationʺ of the tax code under
section 7212(a) could be too vague or overbroad, however, Kassouf misconstrues
Aguilarʹs focus on the mens rea requirement (ʺcorruptlyʺ) as also encompassing a focus
on the “due administration” language. We do not read Aguilar as expressing any
concern regarding, much less tying its holding to, the “due administration” language in
section 1503(a).
32
15‐2224
United States v. Marinello, II
1 prove that the defendant was aware of an ongoing tax investigation to obtain a
2 conviction under § 7212(a)ʺ), cert. denied, 547 U.S. 1132 (2006).11 Notably,
3 although we have not explicitly adopted this rule in any previous opinion, we
4 have implicitly applied it by affirming convictions under section 7212(a)ʹs
5 omnibus clause without discussion of the defendantʹs awareness of a pending
6 IRS proceeding. See United States v. McLeod, 251 F.3d 78, 80 (2d Cir. 2001)
7 (affirming sentence imposed where the defendant helped his clients falsify tax
8 returns), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 935 (2001); Kelly, 147 F.3d at 174‐75 (affirming the
9 defendantʹs conviction for providing a false agreement to the tax authorities to
10 substantiate a deduction on his tax return).
11 Our conclusion is consistent with at least two other sources. First, in the
12 body of case law that developed within the forty‐four years that elapsed between
13 section 7212ʹs enactment in 195412 and Kassoufʹs issuance in 1998, the government
14 assures us (and we have found no reason to doubt) that no court had limited the
In addition to the First, Ninth, and Tenth Circuits, the Eleventh Circuit, in a decision
11
that predates Kassouf, upheld an attorneyʹs conviction under section 7212(a)ʹs omnibus
clause for creating a corporation to ʺdisguise the character of [a clientʹs] illegally earned
income and repatriate it,ʺ even where the attorney had no knowledge that his client was
engaged in a ʺsting operationʺ with the government against him. See United States v.
Popkin, 943 F.2d 1535, 1536‐37, 1541 (11th Cir. 1991), cert. denied, 503 U.S. 1004 (1992).
12 See Act of Aug. 16, 1954, ch. 736, 68A Stat. 855.
33
15‐2224
United States v. Marinello, II
1 omnibus clauseʹs application to the corrupt obstruction or impediment of a
2 known and pending IRS action. See Appelleeʹs Br. at 19. To the contrary,
3 contemporary model jury instructions for use outside of the Sixth Circuit do not
4 include these criteria as elements of the offense. See 3 Leonard B. Sand et al.,
5 Modern Federal Jury Instructions: Criminal ¶ 59.05, Instruction 59‐32 & cmt. (2016)
6 (containing pattern instructions or formulations for a violation of section
7 7212(a)ʹs omnibus clause in the First, Seventh, Tenth, and Eleventh Circuits).
8 Second, the Department of Justiceʹs internal tax division policy states that
9 the omnibus clause may be used ʺto prosecute a person who, prior to any audit or
10 investigation, engaged in large‐scale obstructive conduct involving the tax
11 liability of third parties.ʺ U.S. Depʹt of Justice, Criminal Tax Manual § 17.03 (2012
12 ed.), https://www.justice.gov/ sites/ default/ files/ tax/ legacy/ 2013/ 05/ 14/
13 CTM%20Chapter%2017.pdf (last visited August 1, 2016) (emphasis added),
14 archived at https://perma.cc/QWW4‐DTJL. Pursuant to this policy, a defendant
15 may be charged under the omnibus clause in the absence of a pending IRS action.
16 See also id. § 17.04 (ʺTo establish a Section 7212(a) omnibus clause violation, the
17 government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant in any
34
15‐2224
United States v. Marinello, II
1 way (1) corruptly (2) endeavored (3) to obstruct or impede the due
2 administration of the Internal Revenue Code.ʺ).
3 Because we conclude that, under section 7212(a), ʺthe due administration
4 of this titleʺ is not limited to a pending IRS investigation or proceeding of which
5 the defendant had knowledge, we reject Marinelloʹs first argument as without
6 merit.13
In his reply brief, Marinello also raises for the first time an argument that the
13
enactment of a statute in 2002 prohibiting the knowing destruction, alteration, or
falsification of records ʺwith the intent to impede, obstruct, or influence the
investigation or proper administration of any matter within the jurisdiction of any
department or agency of the United States . . . , or in relation to or contemplation of any
such matter,ʺ 18 U.S.C. § 1519 (emphasis added), demonstrates that Congress employs
specific language when it prohibits conduct ʺnot predicated upon the existence of any
federal action or proceeding,ʺ Appellantʹs Reply Br. at 9. Marinello points to the
absence of similar language in 26 U.S.C. § 7212(a) prohibiting corrupt obstruction or
impediment ʺin relation to or contemplation ofʺ an IRS action—which Congress did not
add to section 7212(a) in 2002—as support for his theory that a defendantʹs knowledge
of such a pending action is required to violate the omnibus clause. Ordinarily, we do
not address an argument that the district court has not previously considered. See In re
Nortel Networks Corp. Sec. Litig., 539 F.3d 129, 132 (2d Cir. 2008) (per curiam); Allianz Ins.
Co. v. Lerner, 416 F.3d 109, 114 (2d Cir. 2005). Even if we did so here, however, we have
found no authority that supports Marinelloʹs attempt to create offense elements by
contrasting 18 U.S.C. § 1519 with 26 U.S.C. § 7212(a). Moreover, ʺCongressional
inaction,ʺ such as the lack of retroactive amendment to section 7212(a) in light of section
1519, ʺlacks ʹpersuasive significanceʹ because ʹseveral equally tenable inferencesʹ may be
drawn from such inaction.ʺ Pension Benefit Guar. Corp. v. LTV Corp., 496 U.S. 633, 650
(1990) (quoting United States v. Wise, 370 U.S. 405, 411 (1962)).
35
15‐2224
United States v. Marinello, II
1 III. An Omnibus Clause Violation May Be Premised on an Omission
2 Marinelloʹs next argument proceeds in two steps. First, citing Kelly,
3 Marinello asserts that an omission cannot form the basis of a conviction under
4 the omnibus clause. Second, to ensure that he was not improperly convicted for
5 a failure to act, he contends that the jury should have been instructed that it was
6 required to unanimously agree on at least one of the underlying means alleged in
7 Count One (two of which pertained to omissions) and to render a special verdict
8 specifying which of those underlying means it found were met.14
Marinello further argues in passing that Count One falsely states that ʺthe
14
defendantʹs accountantʺ was not provided with complete and accurate records for tax
purposes, see Superseding Indictment at 1 (Appʹx 75), because he maintains that no
professional relationship existed between him and Wiegley. The record shows that
Marinello consulted with Wiegley, although the two did not sign a contract for
accounting services. While the superseding indictmentʹs description of Wiegley could
have been more precise, we conclude that Marinelloʹs argument fails for at least two
reasons. First, assuming that the jury had relied on the allegations pertaining to ʺthe
defendantʹs accountantʺ in order to convict under Count One, its verdict demonstrates
that, based on the evidence introduced at trial, it agreed with the superseding
indictmentʹs description of Wiegley as his accountant. Thus, the jury resolved the
instant factual dispute in the governmentʹs favor. Moreover, if and to the extent that the
superseding indictmentʹs description of Wiegley was erroneous, that error is harmless.
The jury clearly did not convict Marinello on Count One based solely on his offense
conduct in connection with his consultations with Wiegley, whether or not Wiegley was
his accountant. Marinelloʹs counsel effectively conceded at trial that Marinello engaged
in all of the other means alleged under Count One, see August 6, 2014 Trial Tr. at 51‐56
(Appʹx 128‐33), and counsel only disputed whether Marinello performed any of the acts
or omissions alleged with the requisite corrupt intent. The juryʹs verdict of conviction
demonstrates that it concluded that the government proved such corrupt intent with
respect to the other conduct alleged in the indictment, in which Marinello concedes he
36
15‐2224
United States v. Marinello, II
1 In Kelly, we described section 7212(a)ʹs omnibus clause as ʺrender[ing]
2 criminal ʹany otherʹ action which serves to obstruct or impede the due
3 administration of the revenue laws.ʺ 147 F.3d at 175 (quoting 26 U.S.C.
4 § 7212(a)). From this statement, Marinello attempts to extract the principle that a
5 violation of the omnibus clause must be predicated on a defendantʹs affirmative
6 ʺaction,ʺ and not an omission. But Kelly did not cabin offense conduct under the
7 omnibus clause in this manner; section 7212(a) broadly prohibits corruptly
8 obstructing or impeding, or endeavoring to obstruct or impede, the due
9 administration of the tax laws ʺin any other way.ʺ See 26 U.S.C. § 7212(a). We do
10 not see how a defendant could escape criminal liability under the omnibus clause
11 for a corrupt omission that is designed to delay the IRS in the administration of
12 its duties merely because the offense conduct involved an omission. Cf. Kelly,
13 147 F.3d at 177 (approving a jury instruction defining the term ʺendeavorsʺ under
14 section 7212(a) to mean ʺto knowingly and intentionally act or to knowingly and
15 intentionally make any effort which has a reasonable tendency to bring about the
16 desired resultʺ (emphasis added)). For example, a defendant surely could be
17 charged under section 7212(a) for knowingly failing to provide the IRS with
engaged. Thus, whether or not the alleged omission describing Wiegley as Marinelloʹs
accountant was properly before the jury is immaterial.
37
15‐2224
United States v. Marinello, II
1 materials that it requests, or, as in Marinelloʹs case, for failing to document or
2 provide a proper accounting of business income and expenses.15 While
3 apparently not as common as prosecutions based on one or more affirmative
4 acts, we are aware of several cases in which the government has prosecuted on
5 the basis of an omission as a means of violating section 7212(a)ʹs omnibus
6 clause.16
7 We conclude, then, that an omission may be a means by which a defendant
8 corruptly obstructs or impedes the due administration of the Internal Revenue
9 Code under section 7212(a). And it follows that Marinelloʹs second argument on
We nonetheless recognize that the scope of omissions on which an omnibus clause
15
violation could be based is not limitless. See Wood, 384 F. Appʹx at 708 (suggesting it is
ʺa questionable propositionʺ that a defendantʹs mere failure to file tax returns could
constitute a violation of the omnibus clause, particularly because the ʺwillful failure to
file tax returns is addressed in a different section of the Internal Revenue Code, 26
U.S.C. § 7203ʺ). Whatever those limits may be, the omissions at issue here do not
exceed them.
16 See, e.g., Kassouf, 144 F.3d at 953 n.1 (alleging the defendant ʺfailed to maintain or
cause to be maintained partnership books and recordsʺ; ʺfailed to report or cause to be
reported substantial amounts of interest earned on [certain] bank accountsʺ; and
transferred property ʺwithout making or causing to be made any record of that sale or
transferʺ); United States v. Armstrong, 974 F. Supp. 528, 531 (E.D. Va. 1997) (alleging the
defendant ʺprovided false information to, and withheld material information from, his
tax return preparer with regard to his travel expense reimbursements and incomeʺ);
United States v. Bezmalinovic, No. S3 96 CR 97 MGC, 1996 WL 737037, at *2, 1996 U.S.
Dist. LEXIS 18976, at *5‐6 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 26, 1996) (alleging the defendant failed to
report salary payments to certain employees ʺin any IRS Form W‐2ʺ or ʺto remit to the
IRS the [payroll and unemployment] tax[es] due and owingʺ).
38
15‐2224
United States v. Marinello, II
1 appeal is also without merit because the jury could have relied on his alleged
2 failure to keep Express Courierʹs books and records, or to provide Wiegley with
3 complete and accurate information on his personal and corporate income, as a
4 basis for its conviction on Count One. No unanimity instruction or special
5 verdict form was therefore required in order to distinguish the juryʹs assessment
6 of the underlying affirmative actions as opposed to the omissions alleged under
7 this count, because there is no requirement under the statute to make certain
8 that, if Marinello were convicted, the conviction was based solely on an
9 affirmative action and not an omission.
10 Marinello has not raised in this Court the issue of whether a unanimity
11 instruction or special verdict form is required for any other reason during trials
12 arising out of alleged section 7212(a) omnibus clause violations, and we therefore
13 do not decide or offer an opinion with respect to any such argument. His pre‐
14 trial filings sought an instruction that the jury unanimously agree on at least one
15 of the eight means alleged in order to convict, as well as a special verdict form
16 requiring that the jury specify its findings on each of those means. However, he
17 does not repeat arguments concerning those requests on appeal. Cf. JP Morgan
18 Chase Bank v. Altos Hornos de Mexico, S.A. de C.V., 412 F.3d 418, 428 (2d Cir. 2005)
39
15‐2224
United States v. Marinello, II
1 (ʺ[A]rguments not made in an appellantʹs opening brief are waived even if the
2 appellant pursued those arguments in the district court or raised them in a reply
3 brief.ʺ).17
4 IV. The District Court Did Not Procedurally Err In Determining
5 Marinelloʹs Sentence
6 Finally, Marinelloʹs remaining arguments—that the district court should
7 have conducted further inquiries to calculate the tax loss and restitution
8 amounts, and should have applied the two‐level reduction for acceptance of
9 responsibility—do not convince us that the district court committed procedural
10 error meriting resentencing.
11 Marinello argues that the district courtʹs ʺcursory reviewʺ of his proffered
12 tax returns in arriving at a tax loss of $598,215.53 and a total restitution amount
We note nevertheless that while the Ninth Circuit does not appear to object to the
17
use of a unanimity instruction in this context, see United States v. Murphy, 824 F.3d 1197,
1201, 1206 (9th Cir. 2016), at least two courts (the Tenth Circuit and a district court in
Washington D.C.) have ruled that the instruction is erroneous. See Sorensen, 801 F.3d at
1237 (concluding that the district court erred by requiring unanimity on one or more of
the listed means, in part because the instruction ʺignored the indictmentʹs language
charging that [the defendant] violated § 7212(a) ʹby the following means, among others
. . . .ʹʺ (emphasis in original)); United States v. Adams, 150 F. Supp. 3d 32, 37‐38 (D.D.C.
2015) (agreeing with Sorensenʹs conclusion, and quoting Richardson v. United States, 526
U.S. 813, 817 (1999) for the proposition that ʺ[a] federal jury need not always decide
unanimously which of several possible sets of underlying brute facts make up a
particular element, say, which of several possible means the defendant used to commit
an element of the crimeʺ).
40
15‐2224
United States v. Marinello, II
1 of $351,763.08, without conducting an evidentiary hearing or receiving
2 supplemental submissions, ʺwas unfair and violated his due process rights.ʺ See
3 Appellantʹs Br. at 29. But a district court ʺis not required, by either the Due
4 Process Clause or the federal Sentencing Guidelines, to hold a full‐blown
5 evidentiary hearing in resolving sentencing disputes. . . . All that is required is
6 that the court afford the defendant some opportunity to rebut the [g]overnmentʹs
7 allegations.ʺ Sabhnani, 599 F.3d at 258 (quoting Maurer, 266 F.3d at 151‐52). Here,
8 Marinello challenged the Probation Officeʹs calculations in his objections to the
9 PSR, attaching his personal and corporate tax returns in an effort to show that
10 $48,890 was a more appropriate tax loss and restitution amount. He did not,
11 however, respond on reply to the many inaccuracies the government identified
12 in these returns. The district court considered his objection and, crediting the
13 governmentʹs arguments, ultimately rejected it before imposing sentence.
14 Because Marinello was afforded ʺsome opportunityʺ to dispute the tax loss and
15 restitution amounts, and to respond to the governmentʹs arguments with respect
16 to his tax returns, the district court did not abuse its discretion by not obtaining
17 additional information regarding this issue. See id.
41
15‐2224
United States v. Marinello, II
1 Nor can we say that the district court abused its discretion by denying
2 Marinello a two‐level decrease to his base offense level because he did not
3 ʺclearly demonstrate[] acceptance of responsibility for his offense,ʺ a decision to
4 which we accord ʺgreat deference on review,ʺ see U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1(a) & cmt. 5.
5 Marinelloʹs sole relevant contention on appeal is that his ʺoffer[] to plead guilty
6 to the failures to file income tax returnsʺ ʺshould have received some
7 consideration in sentencing.ʺ Appellantʹs Br. at 30. But an offer to plead guilty to
8 some counts of an indictment provides limited evidence of acceptance of
9 responsibility; even a defendant who pleads guilty is not guaranteed to receive
10 the adjustment for acceptance of responsibility. See U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1 cmt. 3.
11 Moreover, we agree with the district courtʹs conclusion that Marinelloʹs
12 case is not one of the ʺrare situationsʺ contemplated in the Guidelines in which a
13 defendant ʺmay clearly demonstrate an acceptance of responsibility for his
14 criminal conduct even though he exercises his constitutional right to a trialʺ—for
15 instance, by ʺgo[ing] to trial to assert and preserve issues that do not relate to
16 factual guilt.ʺ See id. cmt. 2. Marinello proceeded to trial on the theory that he
17 lacked the requisite mens rea to commit the omnibus clause violation, an issue of
18 factual guilt. It was only in post‐trial briefing that Marinelloʹs legal argument
42
15‐2224
United States v. Marinello, II
1 pertaining to the elements of an omnibus clause violation and the Kassouf rule
2 was first raised. In our view, it was reasonable for the district court to deny a
3 reduction for acceptance of responsibility in these circumstances. See id. (stating
4 the acceptance of responsibility adjustment ʺis not intended to apply to a
5 defendant who puts the government to its burden of proof at trial by denying the
6 essential factual elements of guilt, is convicted, and only then admits guilt and
7 expresses remorseʺ); cf. United States v. Melot, 732 F.3d 1234, 1244‐45 (10th Cir.
8 2013) (concluding that the district court clearly erred in applying the acceptance
9 of responsibility reduction where the defendant went to trial ʺso he could
10 challenge the mens rea element of the crimes charged in the indictment,ʺ
11 including a violation of section 7212(a)ʹs omnibus clause).18
Three additional considerations under U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1 bolster the district courtʹs
18
conclusion on this score. First, ʺprior to adjudication of [his] guilt,ʺ no ʺvoluntary
restitution paymentʺ to the IRS had been made. See id. cmt. 1(C). Second, Marinello did
not timely manifest acceptance of responsibility: He stated that he ʺnever got aroundʺ
to paying his taxes instead of admitting to his guilt during his interview with Agent
Klimczak, August 6, 2014 Trial Tr. at 172 (Appʹx 181), and he persisted in denying
responsibility for the section 7212(a) count while his PSR was being prepared. See
U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1 cmt. 1(H) (providing that ʺtimelinessʺ is a consideration for
determining whether a defendant has accepted responsibility). Even during the
sentencing proceedings, he told the court that the Probation Office ʺc[ould]nʹt add a
column of numbers togetherʺ to calculate the total tax loss, and blamed his misconduct
on feeling ʺoverwhelmed by the job.ʺ Sentencing Tr. at 19‐20 (Appʹx 573‐74). Third, the
district courtʹs application of a U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1 enhancement for obstruction of justice
ʺordinarily indicates that the defendant has not accepted responsibility for his criminal
43
15‐2224
United States v. Marinello, II
1 We therefore conclude that the district court did not commit procedural
2 error by using the manner of calculating the tax loss and restitution amounts that
3 it did, or by deciding not to apply a two‐level reduction to Marinelloʹs base
4 offense level for acceptance of responsibility.
5 CONCLUSION
6 For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
conduct,ʺ see U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1 cmt. 4. Marinello offers no reason to conclude that this is
an ʺextraordinary case[]ʺ warranting ʺadjustments under both §§ 3C1.1 and 3E1.1.ʺ See
id.
44