NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
________________
No. 19-1093
________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
CARY LEE PETERSON,
Appellant
________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of New Jersey
(D. N.J. 3-16-cr-00230-001)
District Judge: Honorable Anne E. Thompson
________________
Submitted Pursuant to LAR 34.1(a)
July 10, 2020
Before: McKEE, BIBAS, and FUENTES, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: October 8, 2020)
________________
OPINION*
________________
McKEE, Circuit Judge
*
This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not
constitute binding precedent.
Pro se appellant, Cary Peterson, appeals his conviction and sentence for securities
fraud and for making materially false and misleading statements about his publicly traded
company. While we construe pro se petitions liberally, pro se petitioners are not given
license to “flout procedural rules.”1 Nor can they expect appellate courts to comb
through a record they failed to provide. Accordingly, we must affirm the district court’s
judgment of conviction and sentence.
During trial, the Government produced testimony from several witnesses who
testified about Peterson’s dishonesty and fraud. Peterson simply argued that he did not
intend to deceive or defraud anyone and that the alleged scheme was too complex for him
to have accomplished.2 That argument was obviously insufficient to raise a reasonable
doubt in the jurors’ minds.
As an incarcerated, pro se petitioner, Peterson is offered some latitude in his
appeal considering his limited access to legal resources compared to represented
plaintiffs. The facts section of Peterson’s appellate brief alleges baseless and
unsubstantiated facts about the motivations of the prosecution and judges associated with
the case and claims Peterson was not tried by an impartial court.3 Peterson asserts the
criminal trial brought against him was a private prosecution despite being brought by the
Government. He also argues, without citing any support whatsoever, that he is somehow
1
Mala v. Crown Bay Marina, Inc., 704 F.3d 239, 245 (3d Cir. 2013).
2
Supp. App. 57-58.
3
Appellant’s Br. 15-17.
2
the victim of judges and law enforcement officials who are graduates of Seton Hall
University.4
Given the frivolity of his unsupported allegations, it is not surprising that Peterson
failed to provide relevant transcripts of the trial and sentencing hearing as required by
Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 10(b) and Local Appellate Rule 11.1.5 While we are
exceedingly reluctant to dismiss an appeal for failure to comply with procedural rules, we
are authorized to do so by Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 3(a) and the arguments
here warrant nothing more.6 Peterson provided no record and therefore gave no basis for
us to review his unsupported allegations. Moreover, to the extent that he does present a
legal argument, it is also frivolous and unsupported. We also conclude that his sentence
was within the applicable Guideline range and there is nothing to suggest it was
unreasonable or inappropriate.7
Accordingly, we will affirm the district court’s judgment of conviction and
sentence.
4
Id. 15-18.
5
Even if Peterson could not afford the cost, he could have filed an application pursuant to
28 U.S.C. §753(f) for the court to provide transcripts at the government’s expense. See
L.A.R. 11.1.
6
See Horner Equip. Int’l, Inc., v. Seascape Pool Ctr., Inc., 884 F.2d 89, 93 (3d Cir.
1989).
7
United States v. Handerhan, 739 F.3d 114, 119-20 (3d Cir. 2013).
3