[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FILED
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
________________________ ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
NOV 25, 2008
No. 06-13332 THOMAS K. KAHN
________________________ CLERK
D. C. Docket No. 05-60016-CR-RWG
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JAMES W. LONG,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
_________________________
(November 25, 2008)
Before BIRCH and MARCUS, Circuit Judges, and FORRESTER,* District Judge.
PER CURIAM:
*
Honorable J. Owen Forrester, United States District Judge for the Northern District of
Georgia, sitting by designation.
Defendant-appellant James Long appeals his convictions for conspiracy to
commit wire and mail fraud and substantive wire fraud, stemming from his
operation of a payday loan company, Cash Today USA, Inc. (“Cash Today”).1
Long also challenges his 72-month sentence as procedurally and substantively
unreasonable. After review of the record and consideration of the parties’ briefs
and arguments, we AFFIRM.
I. BACKGROUND
A federal grand jury returned a ten-count indictment charging Long and
Cash Today with conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud, in violation of 18
U.S.C. §§ 371, 1341, and 1343 (Count I) and substantive wire fraud, in violation of
18 U.S.C. § 1343 (Counts II-X).
In April 2001, Long filed Articles of Incorporation for Cash Today with the
Florida Department of State and leased office space in a shopping center in
Margate, Florida. The lease was signed by Long and Melvin Ruth as President and
Vice President, respectively, of Cash Today. Long told federal authorities that
while he was the owner of record of Cash Today, Ruth was his silent partner and
had a 50% interest in the business. Ruth’s name was not on the corporate
documents, however, because Ruth was awaiting sentencing on a recent conviction
1
Cash Today also was convicted but does not appeal.
2
for telemarketing fraud.
Between April and June 2001, Long opened bank accounts in the name of
Cash Today USA at Regents Bank, Bank of America, and First Union. Some of the
accounts were designated as trust accounts and others as operating accounts. Both
Long and Ruth signed the signature card as President and Vice President of Cash
Today USA, Inc., respectively, on the account Long opened at First Union. Cash
Today hired independent sales offices (“ISO”) to raise start-up capital from
investors and agreed to pay them a 40% commission on all revenue raised for Cash
Today by their sales agents. Long, Ruth, and the sales agents operated from the
offices in the back of a check-cashing store doing business as Republic Cash
Advance (“RCA”). Cash Today and RCA entered into an agreement pursuant to
which Cash Today would loan investor funds to RCA, in exchange for which Cash
Today would receive a 20% annual return, paid 5% quarterly.
Prior to trial, Long filed a motion to suppress evidence, including bank
records, Federal Express receipts, investor records, and contracts between Cash
Today and its sales associates, seized during a search of Cash Today’s offices.
Long argued that there was no probable cause for the search and that the search
warrant failed to state with particularity the items to be seized. The application and
affidavit that was prepared by FBI Agent Richard Kiper and submitted to the
3
magistrate judge on 28 June 2001 detailed the government’s investigation into
Cash Today and alleged that there was probable cause to believe that the offices of
Cash Today contained evidence of mail fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1341,
wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343, money laundering, in violation of 18
U.S.C. § 1956, and conspiracy, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371.
Specifically, Agent Kiper attested that: (1) subpoenaed bank records showed
that Cash Today transferred $1,134,000 of the $2.1 million in investor funds out of
a trust account and into an operating account in order to use those funds to pay
commissions and consulting fees; (2) Cash Today’s offering materials and
purchase agreements misrepresented that investor funds would be placed into
segregated accounts and used exclusively to facilitate loans to Cash Today’s
customers; and (3) Florida Office of the Comptroller records showed that Cash
Today had never applied for money transmitter licenses, which are required for
every check-cashing location. The affidavit also identified two Cash Today
investors who invested $10,000 and $50,000, respectively, after being told by Cash
Today sales agents that Cash Today operated seventeen check-cashing stores in
Florida and that their investments would be held in a trust account. Neither
investor was told that sales commissions would be paid from their investments.
At the suppression hearing, Agent Kiper conceded that the one-page search
4
warrant did not describe the premises to be searched or identify the documents to
be seized, but testified that a description of the location of Cash Today’s offices
(“Attachment A”) and a list of twelve specific items to be seized (“Attachment B”)
were part of the package submitted to and signed by the magistrate judge.2 Agent
Kiper was unable to recall whether the attachments were stapled or paper-clipped
to the affidavit but testified that they were “touching” the affidavit and that the
issuing magistrate judge read the entire affidavit in his presence.3 Agent Kiper
further testified that during a pre-operations briefing he reviewed with the search
team the affidavit and attachments and discussed the scope of the search, including
the twelve specific items to be seized.
The magistrate judge issued a report and recommendation finding that the
warrant was supported by probable cause because the affidavit listed the specific
statutes allegedly violated and detailed the FBI’s investigation, which revealed a
2
Attachment B to the affidavit, entitled “Description of Property to be Seized,” listed the
following items: (1) customer/investor account information; (2) customer correspondence; (3)
financial and banking records; (4) other correspondence; (5) sales literature, including “welcome
packs”; (6) telephone records; (7) telephone “scripts” and other telemarketing aids; (8) computer
internal and external hard drives, floppy disk drives and diskettes, tape drives; (9) records of
mailings, facsimile copies, and courier records; (10) overnight mail receipts; (11)
purchase/sale/trade records and other documents/records related to the purchase and
maintenance of “receivables,” corporate notes, stocks, or private placement contracts; (12) cash,
cashier’s checks, and other negotiable instruments.
3
Although the warrant incorporated Attachment A by reference, it made no reference to
Attachment B. At the suppression hearing, the government stated that this omission was a
“typographical goof” by the AUSA and also an “oversight” by the magistrate judge.
5
“Ponzi” scheme encompassing mail and wire fraud, money laundering, and other
federal offenses. The magistrate judge further found that the omission of any
reference to Attachment B did not render the warrant invalid because the warrant
and its attachments were presented to the issuing magistrate judge and the scope of
the search was discussed specifically with the search team prior to execution of the
warrant. The district court adopted the recommendation and denied the motion.
At trial, Salvatore DeStefano, one of Cash Today’s investors, testified that in
April 2001, he received a telephone call from Lorena Kaus, who identified herself
as a Cash Today sales agent. She explained that she was offering an opportunity to
invest in a check-cashing and payday advance loan company that was licensed to
do business in Florida. Kaus faxed to DeStefano at his home in New Jersey
marketing and promotional materials, which stated that the investor would receive
an annualized 42% return on his minimum investment of $10,000, paid at 3.5% per
month by the third of each month, and that TeleCheck would be the guarantor on
all accounts receivable. DeStefano testified that he was familiar with TeleCheck,
which he understood to be a “fairly well-known company. . . that reduces the risk
of merchants in accepting checks.” The materials further represented that Cash
Today was initially incorporated in Nevada in 1996 and had “a completely
unblemished three-year history of growth that includes two years of independent
6
CPA audited financials.”
Cash Today thereafter sent DeStefano an Accounts Receivable Purchase
Agreement (“purchase agreement”), which DeStefano signed and returned to Cash
Today on 23 April 2001. The purchase agreement stated, inter alia, that: (1) Cash
Today was a “validly formed existing corporation in good standing under the laws
of the state of Florida and . . . is properly licensed and authorized to operate its
business under the trade name Cash Today”; (2) “TeleCheck will guarantee all
accounts purchased by [the investor]”; and (3) all investor funds would be
“deposited in segregated accounts receivable fund at an FDIC insured bank” and
“utilized exclusively and solely for the purpose of facilitating loans to clients’
customers.” The agreement further stated that Cash Today acknowledges and
understands that the investor has relied on these representations and warranties in
entering the purchase agreement.
Pursuant to the wiring instructions he received from Cash Today, DeStefano
wire-transferred $20,000 to a Cash Today trust account at a Bank of America in
Deerfield Beach, Florida. After making the transfer, DeStefano received a
signature page to the purchase agreement, which was signed by J.W. Long as
president of Cash Today and witnessed by Melvin Ruth. DeStefano also received
via fax an addendum to the purchase agreement and a letter via mail confirming his
7
purchase of $20,000 of accounts receivable, both signed by J.W. Long.
DeStefano testified that he believed, based on the representations contained
in the promotional materials and the purchase agreement, that: (1) his investment
would be used to fund the start-up corporation, Cash Today; (2) Cash Today was in
the business of making temporary payday advance loans to the general public; (3)
Cash Today was the entity making the actual loans for check-cashing purposes, not
RCA; (4) “there would be no commingling of funds, that basically each investor’s
funds would be maintained in a separate account and that 100 percent of those
funds would be used exclusively, solely, and for no other purpose than to fund
payday loans”; and (5) Cash Today had entered into a contract with TeleCheck
whereby the latter would “guarantee the receipts on the payments that were made
to . . . Cash Today USA.”
DeStefano testified that he would not have invested his money but for these
representations. Specifically, he stated that it was “critical” to him that “the
accounts receivable purchase agreement included the representations that
TeleCheck guaranteed the payment, that the funds Cash Today accepted from
investors were being put into separate accounts, broken down by investor, and that
100 percent, that is all of the funds, were going to be used solely, specifically, and
exclusively for funding this corporation and . . . for funding the loans and for no
8
other purpose.” He stated that he “absolutely” would not have invested in Cash
Today had he known that TeleCheck had no relationship with Cash Today or that
his money would not be maintained in a segregated account.
DeStefano received his last interest check on 1 June 2001. Some time
thereafter, Long sent DeStefano a letter advising DeStefano that the government
had unjustifiably frozen Cash Today’s accounts and assuring him that Cash Today
had “done nothing wrong.” In October or November, DeStefano received a money
order in the amount of $210 from Cash Today. According to the letter
accompanying the money order, the payment was a “good faith showing on the
part of Cash Today USA that they intended to resume business normally in short
order.” Out of the $20,000 DeStefano invested with Cash Today, he received back
only $1000, resulting in a loss of $19,000.
In addition to DeStefano, the government called eleven other Cash Today
investors, all of whom gave substantially similar accounts of their experiences with
Cash Today. The investors testified that, after receiving and responding to
unsolicited internet advertisements, they were contacted via telephone by Cash
Today sales agents, who offered them the opportunity to invest in a start-up
company that would use their investments to make payday advance loans to
customers at its check-cashing stores. The investors also received in the mail Cash
9
Today’s promotional materials, instructions for wire-transferring their investments
to Cash Today’s trust account in Florida, and the accounts receivable purchase
agreement. The solicitation materials received by some of the investors contained
a letter, signed by Long, which promised a 3.5% monthly return “collateralized” by
customer checks that would be guaranteed by TeleCheck. Some letters promised
only a three percent return.
All of the investors signed the purchase agreement, which contained the
same representations made in the agreement signed by DeStefano, including that
Cash Today was properly licensed and authorized to do business in Florida, that
TeleCheck would guarantee all accounts purchased by the investor, and that all
investor funds would be maintained in segregated trust accounts and utilized
exclusively and solely for the purpose of facilitating loans to Cash Today’s
customers. The purchase agreement further represented that no commissions
would be paid out of the investor funds and that all expenditures, including fees
paid to the ISO’s, would be paid directly by Cash Today.
The investors testified that they relied on these representations as well as
representations that Cash Today operated several check-cashing stores in Florida,
in deciding to invest their money. Some testified that Cash Today never disclosed
to them its relationship with RCA and they would not have made the investments
10
had they known that their money would be used to make loans to RCA. After
wire-transferring their investments to Cash Today’s trust account and receiving
some initial interest payments, the investors were advised in a letter from Long that
the government had frozen Cash Today’s bank accounts and received no further
interest payments.
Soneet R. Kapina, a forensic accountant who reviewed Cash Today’s
records, testified as an expert witness that between April and June 2001, Cash
Today collected $2,169,946.93 from investors. While only $61,543.92 was paid
out to investors in dividends, $755,000 was paid to RCA, $865,416.19 to the sales
agents, and $208,891.00 to Long.4 Out of the 110 Cash Today investors, only 101
or 102 actually received any interest payments in April and June 2001. In total,
Cash Today paid out $2,242,282.65, leaving only $146,996.43 in Cash Today’s
bank accounts.5
Based on his review of Cash Today’s financial records, Kapina determined
that Cash Today was not operating any sort of business that would generate a flow
4
Other cash disbursements included: (1) $100,260.21 in payment of operational costs
and expenses to various persons and entities; (2) $14,192.81 in bank card fees; (3) $54,005.00 to
Rolando Nansca, an independent sales agent; (4) $50,000 to Doreen Kafi, an RCA manager; (5)
$72,200 to a company called “Success Direct”; (6) $7,337.52 in unidentifiable, miscellaneous
disbursements; (7) $1500 in automatic teller machine (“ATM”) fees; and (8) $1936 in other bank
fees.
5
RCA returned to Cash Today $219,032 of the $755,000 it received.
11
of income by investing the investor funds. Because Cash Today had no active
source of income or revenue, Kapina concluded that these disbursements were
made exclusively from investor monies and that Cash Today was thus incapable of
paying the rate of return promised in the purchase agreements. The only way Cash
Today could have paid dividends was by raising more investor funds from new
investors and paying earlier investors with the money raised from later investors.
Kapina stated that Cash Today’s operation “ha[d] all the tell tale classic signs of
what is often referred to as a Ponzi scheme,” which, he explained, denotes a
scheme whereby an entity pays earlier investors with money raised from later
investors, “[a]nd there is no real intrinsic business which generates money with
which to make returns.” Kapina agreed that, in his opinion, Cash Today was an
artifice and scheme to defraud investors.
Long testified in his own defense that when he began raising capital for Cash
Today, it was not his intent to defraud investors but simply “to get the company up
and running, make it successful” and “to become financially secure to go into other
fields.” He admitted that Cash Today had no relationship with TeleCheck and that
the language in the investors’ purchase agreements stating that all checks would be
guaranteed by TeleCheck was “not true,” but maintained that those
misrepresentations were “unintentional” and that he “never lied to anyone.” Upon
12
follow-up questioning by the district judge, Long admitted that he moved funds
from the trust account, which contained the investors’ money, to the operating
account, in order to pay expenses, including commissions.
At the close of testimony, the district court instructed the jury that Cash
Today was to be considered a person and, under the same rules that apply to a
personal defendant, could be found guilty of any offense charged. With respect to
the conspiracy charge, the district court instructed the jury that the government had
to prove that “two or more persons in some way or manner came to a mutual
understanding to try to accomplish a common and unlawful plan. . . [and] that the
defendants knowing the unlawful purpose of the plan wilfully joined in it.”
The jury found Long and Cash Today guilty on all ten counts of the
indictment. In anticipation of sentencing, the probation officer prepared a
presentence report (“PSI”). The PSI grouped the ten counts together and
recommended a base offense level of six. See U.S.S.G. §§ 3D1.2(d) and 2F1.1(a)
(Nov. 1, 2000). Because Long was accountable for losses totaling $2,100,000, his
base offense level was increased twelve levels pursuant to § 2F1.1(b)(1)(M). Long
received a two-level increase under § 2F1.1(b)(2) because the offense involved
more than minimal planning or a scheme to defraud more than one victim and an
additional two-level increase under § 2F1.1(b)(2) because the offense was
13
committed through mass-marketing. Finally, the PSI applied a four-level increase
under § 3B1.1(a) based on Long’s leadership role in the offense. With a total
offense level of 26 and a criminal history category of I, Long’s guidelines range
was 63 to 78 months of imprisonment.
Long filed objections to the PSI, arguing that applying the two-level
enhancements under both U.S.S.G. §§ 2F1.1(b)(2) and (b)(3) constituted
impermissible double counting because the same conduct was used to support
separate increases under two different guideline provisions that served identical
purposes. The district court overruled the objection, finding that the two
provisions “relate to two separate and distinct factors, namely the means used to
perpetrate the fraud and the number of victims.”
The court then stated that it had thoroughly reviewed the PSI and
considered the statements of all the parties, the advisory guidelines, and the 18
U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. The court noted that Long had defrauded “trusting” and
“elderly people” out of their money, which some of the victims had been using “for
medical expenses,” and had shown no compunction about his criminal behavior.
Nevertheless, the court stated that it believed a sentence within the advisory
guideline range was appropriate to reflect the seriousness of the offenses and
provide just and reasonable punishment. The court then sentenced Long to 72
14
months of imprisonment,6 concluding that “[t]his [was] a reasonable sentence after
considering 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)1-7, as well as the arguments for and against
mitigation or extenuation of punishment.”
Long now appeals his convictions and sentence.
II. DISCUSSION
Long raises numerous challenges to his convictions and sentence.
Specifically, he argues that: (1) the district court erred in denying his motion to
suppress evidence seized during the search of Cash Today’s offices; (2) the
cumulative effect of various trial errors deprived him of a fair trial; (3) the
evidence was insufficient to support his convictions; and (4) his sentence was
unreasonable. All of these arguments fail. We address each in turn.
A. Motion to Suppress
Long argues that the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress
physical evidence seized from Cash Today’s offices because: (1) the allegations
contained in the search warrant affidavit were insufficient to establish probable
cause to believe that Cash Today’s operations involved criminal activity, and (2)
the warrant lacked a description of the persons or things to be seized and thus was
invalid on its face.
6
Long was sentenced to 60 months of imprisonment as to the first nine counts, all to run
concurrently, and 12 months of imprisonment as to the final count, to run consecutively.
15
We review the district court’s factual findings on a motion to suppress for
clear error and its application of law to those facts de novo. United States v.
Mercer, 541 F.3d 1070, 1073-74 (11th Cir. 2008) (per curiam). In conducting our
review, we construe the facts in the light most favorable to the party prevailing in
the district court. Id. at 1074.
1. Probable Cause
We review de novo whether an affidavit established probable cause for a
search warrant, “tak[ing] care both to review findings of historical fact only for
clear error and to give due weight to inferences drawn from those facts by resident
judges and local law enforcement officers.” United States v. Jiminez, 224 F.3d
1243, 1248 (11th Cir. 2000) (quotation marks and citation omitted). Due to the
discretionary nature of the issuing judge’s probable cause determination, “our
limited task on appeal is simply to ensure that there exists a substantial basis for
her conclusion.” United States v. Foree, 43 F.3d 1572, 1576 (11th Cir. 1995)
(quotation marks and citation omitted).
Based on our review of the record, including the application for search
warrant and attached affidavit, we find that, under the totality of the circumstances
in this case, the issuing magistrate judge had a substantial basis for concluding that
probable cause existed to believe that Long and Cash Today were violating federal
16
law and that evidence of a crime would be found at Cash Today’s offices.
2. Particularity of Warrant
A warrant must describe with particularity the place to be searched and the
items or persons to be seized in order to satisfy the Fourth Amendment. See United
States v. Jenkins, 901 F.2d 1075, 1081 (11th Cir. 1990). The purpose of this
“particularity requirement” is to prevent “general, exploratory rummaging in a
person’s belongings.” United States v. Wuagneux, 683 F.2d 1343, 1348 (11th Cir.
1982) (quotation marks and citation omitted). A warrant that fails to particularize
the things to be seized is thus facially deficient. See United States v. Accardo, 749
F.2d 1477, 1481 (11th Cir. 1985).
We acknowledge that the warrant in this case was, on its face, clearly
insufficient under the Fourth Amendment. Nevertheless, the undisputed testimony
of Agent Kiper establishes that Attachment B, which contained a list of twelve
specific items to be seized from Cash Today’s offices, was attached to the affidavit
and that the issuing magistrate judge reviewed the entire affidavit in Agent Kiper’s
presence. A reasonable inference may be drawn from these facts that the
magistrate judge read all of the materials presented to her, including Attachment B,
and thus was aware of the scope of the search she was authorizing. Cf. Groh v.
Ramirez, 540 U.S. 551, 561 n.4, 124 S. Ct. 1284, 1292 n.4 (2004) (holding warrant
17
describing items to be seized as a “two-story blue house” invalid where “petitioner
did not alert the Magistrate to the defect . . ., and [the Court] therefore cannot know
whether the Magistrate was aware of the scope of the search he was authorizing”).
B. Trial Errors
We review the cumulative impact of multiple errors de novo, though some
errors might individually be reviewed for plain error. United States v. Dohan, 508
F.3d 989, 993 (11th Cir. 2007) (per curiam). Reversal of a conviction may be
warranted where the cumulative effect of multiple errors is so prejudicial that a
defendant was deprived of the right to a fair trial, even though the errors
considered individually were harmless. United States v. Ramirez, 426 F.3d 1344,
1353 (11th Cir. 2005) (per curiam).
1. District Court’s Participation in Trial
Long argues that the district court impermissibly participated in the case by:
(1) acknowledging that the government’s witnesses had traveled far distances to
testify and thanking them for their testimony; (2) eliciting testimony from a bank
employee verifying the accuracy of the government’s financial evidence; (3)
instructing Long to answer the questions asked and to give more specific
responses; and (4) cross-examining Long in the presence of the jury regarding his
improper handling of investor funds. Long contends that the district court’s
18
comments impugned his credibility, reflected bias in favor of the government, and
unfairly influenced the jury.
A federal trial judge “is more than a mere moderator; he is the governor of
the trial process, vested with the duty to insure that the law is properly
administered.” United States v. Jacquillon, 469 F.2d 380, 387 (5th Cir. 1972).
Accordingly, he may comment on the evidence, question witnesses in order to
elicit or clarify facts, and interrupt counsel when necessary to maintain the pace of
a trial. United States v. Day, 405 F.3d 1293, 1297 (11th Cir. 2005). In doing so,
however, “he must maintain his impartiality, never giving the jury an impression of
his feelings as to the accused’s guilt or innocence.” United States v. James, 510
F.2d 546, 550 (5th Cir. 1975). “Only when the judge’s conduct strays from
neutrality is the defendant thereby denied a constitutionally fair trial.” United
States v. Harris, 720 F.2d 1259, 1262 (11th Cir. 1983) (quotation marks and
citation omitted).
The trial transcript shows that Long was at times non-responsive, prompting
the district judge on three occasions to instruct Long to answer only the questions
that specifically were asked. The judge also advised Long at one point that “the
jury might get more out of [his] testimony if [he] could use clearly responsible
[sic] names [and] dates.” At the end of Long’s lengthy testimony, the judge stated
19
that he had “a couple of questions just to clear up something” regarding Cash
Today’s bank accounts and sources of income. The judge then asked Long a series
of fifteen questions, all of which were intended to clarify his testimony. At no time
did the district court improperly comment on Long’s credibility or otherwise
indicate that he believed Long was guilty. The record further reflects that,
excluding his exchanges with Long, the judge asked a total of eleven questions of
five separate government witnesses over the course of the entire trial. It is clear
from our reading of the record that these questions were intended merely to clarify
the witnesses’ testimony and in no way evinced any bias in favor of the
government’s case.
We find that the jury could not reasonably have interpreted the district
court’s remarks as expressing an opinion that Long was guilty of the offenses
charged. Even assuming there was error, it was cured by the judge’s instruction to
the jury that it was not to assume from any comments he made that he had any
opinion concerning any of the issues in the case and that it was to “disregard
anything [he] may have said during the trial in arriving at your own decision
concerning the facts.” See United States v. Simon, 964 F.2d 1082, 1087 (11th Cir.
1992) (“[A] prejudicial remark may be rendered harmless by curative instructions
to the jury.”) (quotation marks and citation omitted).
20
2. Expert Witness Testimony
Long argues, for the first time on appeal, that the forensic accountant
improperly testified as to his mental state when he testified that Cash Today was a
ponzi scheme. Because Long failed to object to the introduction of this testimony
at trial, our review is for plain error only. See United States v. Rodriguez, 398
F.3d 1291, 1298 (11th Cir. 2005). To prevail under this standard, the appellant
must demonstrate an “(1) error, (2) that is plain, and (3) that affects substantial
rights.” United States v. Moriarty, 429 F.3d 1012, 1019 (11th Cir. 2005) (per
curiam) (citation omitted). In order to satisfy the third prong of the plain error test,
the defendant must show that the alleged error was prejudicial, i.e., that there is a
reasonable probability, which means a probability “sufficient to undermine
confidence in the outcome,” that the result of the proceedings would have been
different but for the alleged error. Rodriguez, 398 F.3d at 1299 (quotation marks
and citation omitted). “[W]here the effect of an error on the result in the district
court is uncertain or indeterminate,” the appellant cannot carry his burden of
showing prejudice. Id. at 1301.
An expert witness may not testify as to his opinion regarding ultimate legal
conclusions. See Montgomery v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 898 F.2d 1537, 1541
(11th Cir. 1990) (“A witness . . . may not testify to the legal implications of
21
conduct; the court must be the jury’s only source of law.”). Although this rule
prevents an expert witness from stating an opinion as to whether the defendant did
or did not have the requisite mental state to be convicted of the crime charged, the
witness may testify as to his opinion on an ultimate issue of fact. See Fed.R.Evid.
704(a). Nevertheless, “courts must remain vigilant against the admission of legal
conclusions.” United States v. Milton, 555 F.2d 1198, 1203 (5th Cir. 1977).
Kapina’s statement that Cash Today bore the hallmarks of a “Ponzi scheme”
described Cash Today’s financial practices but offered no conclusion as to whether
Long participated in these practices with the intent to defraud investors. Because
this statement was a factual, and not a legal, conclusion, it was admissible under
Rule 704. See United States v. Nixon, 918 F.2d 895, 905 (11th Cir. 1990).
Kapina’s statement that Cash Today was an artifice or scheme to defraud is more
problematic, however, because it comes much closer to embodying an
impermissible legal conclusion. See United States v. Scop, 846 F.2d 135, 40 (2nd
Cir. 1988) (expert’s opinions that “drew directly upon the language of the statute
and accompanying regulations concerning ‘manipulation’ and ‘fraud’. . . were
legal conclusions that were highly prejudicial and went well beyond his province
as an expert in securities trading”); cf. Nixon, 918 F.2d at 905 (police detective’s
use of term “conspiracy” was permissible because “it did not track unduly the
22
definition of the offense in 21 U.S.C. § 846”). Although this statement was plainly
inadmissible, Long nevertheless cannot show that his substantial rights were
affected. Given the overwhelming evidence of guilt adduced at trial, there is no
reasonable probability that the result of the trial would have been different had the
district court excluded this single remark. Accordingly, Long has failed to satisfy
the third prong of the plain error test.
3. Jury Instructions
Long contends that because he was the sole officer and shareholder of Cash
Today, the district court erred in failing to instruct the jury that there can be no
criminal conspiracy between a defendant and a corporation where the corporation
is merely the defendant’s alter ego. It is true that “a sole stockholder who
completely controls a corporation and is the sole actor in performance of corporate
activities [] cannot be guilty of a criminal conspiracy with that corporation in the
absence of another human actor.” United States v. Stevens, 909 F.2d 431, 431-32
(11th Cir. 1990). In this case, however, there was abundant evidence that Long
was working in concert with at least one other human actor, Melvin Ruth, to
commit fraud. See United States v. Figueroa, 720 F.2d 1239, 1245 n.8 (11th Cir.
1983) (“[A]n individual can be convicted of conspiracy with ‘unknown persons’
referred to in the indictment.”) (citation omitted). Because Long was not “one
23
human actor, acting for himself and for the corporate entity which he controls,”
Stevens, 909 F.2d at 433, the district court had no basis for issuing an alter-ego
instruction.7
4. Government Comments
Finally, Long argues that because the defense does not have equal subpoena
power over FBI agents, the prosecutor improperly commented on the defense’s
failure to call the lead FBI agent as a witness. In his rebuttal closing argument, the
prosecutor stated:
[W]hy didn’t [defense counsel] bring Agent K[i]per in?. . . The
Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure in this Country give[] fairness to
every party. Rule 17, he could have subpoenaed Mr. K[i]per. He had
the authority and the right to do it. It’s right here in the rules. Who is
he k[i]dding. Each side has equal powers.
Long contends that these comments had the impermissible effect of shifting the
burden of proof to the defense. Long failed to raise this objection at trial, and thus
our review is for plain error only. See Rodriguez, 398 F.3d at 1298.
We must consider allegedly improper prosecutorial comments in context
7
Long also asserts that the district court failed to hold a charge conference in order to
invite objections to the proposed jury instructions. The government states in its brief, however,
that, according to the prosecutor, a charge conference was held on 6 March 2007, but was not
transcribed. Although we have no reason to doubt that this was the case, we note that even if the
district court indeed failed to hold such a conference, as Long alleges, Long was not prejudiced
by this failure because, given the overwhelming evidence of Ruth’s participation in Cash
Today’s operations, there is no reasonable probability that the court would have given the alter-
ego instruction.
24
when evaluating their propriety. See United States v. Bright, 630 F.2d 804, 825
(5th Cir. 1980). “[W]hile a prosecutor may not comment about the absence of
witnesses or otherwise attempt to shift the burden of proof, it is not improper for a
prosecutor to note that the defendant has the same subpoena powers as the
government, particularly when done in response to a defendant’s argument about
the prosecutor’s failure to call a specific witness.” United States v. Hernandez, 145
F.3d 1433, 1439 (11th Cir. 1998) (quotation marks and citation omitted). It also
“is not error to comment on the failure of the defense, as opposed to the defendant,
to counter or explain the evidence.” United States v. Griggs, 735 F.2d 1318, 1321
(11th Cir. 1984) (per curiam) (quotation marks and citation omitted).
The record reflects that in his closing statement, defense counsel asked the
jury to consider why the government failed to call Agent Kiper as a witness:
Well, who is the lead Agent in this case? It was Agent Richard
K[i]per. Why didn’t he testify? He was the lead agent in this case. He
was the person with all the information about everything going on, but
why wasn’t he called? . . . That’s something you can consider in
deciding whether or not the Government has met their burden.
The prosecutor’s comments, which were made in direct response to this argument,
“referred . . . to the quality (or lack thereof) of the defense’s evidence and the
defense’s failure to rebut the necessary inferences created by the government’s
case.” United States v. Exarhos, 135 F.3d 723, 728 (11th Cir. 1998). Moreover,
25
even if the prosecutor’s comments were prejudicial, they were rendered harmless
by the court’s instruction to the jury regarding the burden of proof. See Simon, 964
F.2d at 1087. Accordingly, we conclude that the prosecutor’s comments were not
improper.
C. Sufficiency of the Evidence
Long argues that the government presented no evidence that he knew, prior
to receiving money from the investors, that his business plan was untenable, and
thus failed to prove that he knowingly participated in a scheme to defraud or had
the specific intent to defraud. He contends that the evidence showed that he was
guilty, at worst, of exaggerating the quality of the investment.
We review de novo the sufficiency of the evidence in a criminal trial,
viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the government, and must
uphold a conviction “unless the jury could not have found the defendant guilty
under any reasonable construction of the evidence.” United States v. Chastain, 198
F.3d 1338, 1351 (11th Cir. 1999); see also United States v. Keller, 916 F.2d 628,
632 (11th Cir. 1990) (“In order to uphold . . . the jury’s guilty verdict, this court
need only find that a reasonable factfinder could conclude that the evidence
establishes the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.”). In evaluating the
evidence, all reasonable inferences and credibility choices are made in support of
26
the verdict. See United States v. Mieres-Borges, 919 F.2d 652, 656 (11th Cir.
1990). To establish that the government’s evidence was insufficient, “[i]t is not
enough for a defendant to put forth a reasonable hypothesis of innocence, because
the issue is not whether a jury reasonably could have acquitted but whether it
reasonably could have found guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” United States v.
Thompson, 473 F.3d 1137, 1142 (11th Cir. 2006), cert. denied, — U.S. — , 127
S.Ct. 2155 (2007).
“Aside from the means by which a fraud is effectuated, the elements of mail
fraud, 18 U.S.C. § 1341, and wire fraud, 18 U.S.C. § 1343, are identical,” both
requiring that the defendant “(1) intentionally participates in a scheme or artifice to
defraud another of money or property, and (2) uses or ‘causes’ the use of the mails
or wires for the purpose of executing the scheme or artifice.” United States v.
Ward, 486 F.3d 1212, 1221-22 (11th Cir. 2007) (footnotes omitted). “A scheme to
defraud requires proof of material misrepresentations, or the omission or
concealment of material facts . . . reasonably calculated to deceive persons of
ordinary prudence.” United States v. Hasson, 333 F.3d 1264, 1270-71 (11th Cir.
2003) (quotation marks and citations omitted). In addition to showing that the
defendant’s actions would have deceived a reasonably prudent person, the
government must also prove that the defendant had the requisite mens rea, which is
27
a “conscious knowing intent to defraud.” Pelletier v. Zweifel, 921 F.2d 1465, 1499
(11th Cir. 1991) (quotation marks and citation omitted). The mens rea element is
satisfied where “the perpetrator of the scheme anticipate[s] reliance.” Id.
(emphasis added).
A conviction for conspiracy under 18 U.S.C. § 371 requires proof of “(1) an
agreement among two or more persons to achieve an unlawful objective; (2)
knowing and voluntary participation in the agreement; and (3) an overt act by a
conspirator in furtherance of the agreement.” Hasson, 333 F.3d at 1270. The
government need not prove that the defendant made a specific agreement to use the
mails or interstate wires to commit fraud; “it is enough to prove that the defendant
knowingly and voluntarily agreed to participate in a scheme to defraud and that the
use of the interstate wires in furtherance of the scheme was reasonably
foreseeable.” Id.
The evidence in this case, including the testimony of the investors and the
forensic accountant, showed that Long and Cash Today, through its officers and
agents, made material misrepresentations to investors, regarding, inter alia, the
handling and use of investor funds, Cash Today’s relationship, or lack thereof, with
TeleCheck, and the nature of Cash Today’s business. Although this evidence
likely was alone sufficient for a jury to infer that Long intended to defraud the
28
investors, we need not so decide because Long testified in his own defense. We
have held that the testimony of a defendant, if discredited by the jury, “may be
considered as substantive evidence of the defendant’s guilt.” See United States v.
Brown, 53 F.3d 312, 314 (11th Cir. 1995). Even more significantly, “where some
corroborative evidence of guilt exists . . . the defendant’s testimony, denying guilt,
may establish, by itself, elements of the offense. This rule applies with special
force where the elements to be proved for a conviction include highly subjective
elements: for example, the defendant’s intent or knowledge.” Id. at 314-15.
While Long testified that he did not intend to defraud Cash Today investors,
the jury was entitled to assess Long’s testimony and demeanor, make an adverse
determination as to his credibility, and reject his statements as a complete
fabrication. See United States v. Vazquez, 53 F.3d 1216, 1225-26 (11th Cir. 1995).
The jury also was entitled to conclude that the opposite of his testimony was true,
to wit, that he did participate in the scheme with the intent to defraud. See id. at
1226; Brown, 53 F.3d at 314 (“[W]hen a defendant chooses to testify, he runs the
risk that if disbelieved the jury might conclude the opposite of his testimony is
true.”) (quotation marks and citation omitted). Accordingly, the evidence was
sufficient to support Long’s convictions.
29
D. Long’s Sentence
1. Mass Marketing Enhancement
Long argues for the first time on appeal that the mass-marketing
enhancement was wrongly applied.8 Long concedes that he engaged in “targeted
electronic correspondence to approximately 114 persons,” but argues that this
conduct did not establish “a distinct mass marketing course of conduct as required
under U.S.S.G. § 2F1.1(b)(3).” Appellant’s Brief at 48. We review this issue,
raised for the first time on appeal, for plain error only. See Rodriguez, 398 F.3d at
1298. An error that is not clear under current law cannot be “plain.” United States
v. Castro, 455 F.3d 1249, 1253 (11th Cir. 2006) (per curiam). Accordingly,
“[w]hen the explicit language of a statute or rule does not specifically resolve an
issue, there can be no plain error where there is no precedent from the Supreme
Court or this Court directly resolving it.” Id. (quotation marks and citation
omitted).
Section 2F1.1(b)(3) of the 2000 version of the Guidelines provided for a
two-level increase in a defendant’s base offense level if the offense “was
committed through mass-marketing.” U.S.S.G. § 2F1.1(b)(3) (Nov. 1, 2000). The
commentary defines “mass-marketing” as “a plan, program, promotion, or
8
Long does not challenge the district court’s application of the multiple-victim
enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2F1.1(b)(2).
30
campaign that is conducted through solicitation by telephone, mail, the Internet, or
other means to induce a large number of persons to . . . invest for financial profit.”
U.S.S.G. § 2F1.1 cmt. n.3.
Even assuming, arguendo, that the district court erred in applying the
enhancement under the facts of this case,9 Long cannot carry his burden under the
second prong of plain error review because the explicit language of U.S.S.G.
§ 2F1.1(b)(3) does not specifically resolve the issue and he has identified no
binding precedent, either from our circuit or the Supreme Court, supporting his
contention that the solicitation of 114 investors is insufficient to bring a defendant
within the scope of the mass-marketing enhancement. See Castro, 455 F.3d at
1253. Accordingly, the district court’s application of the § 2F1.1(b)(3)
enhancement cannot be plain error.
2. Double-Counting Claim
Long argues that the enhancement of his sentence under both U.S.S.G.
§ 2F1.1(b)(2) and (b)(3) constituted impermissible double counting. “We review
de novo a claim of double counting.” United States v. Dudley, 463 F.3d 1221,
9
We note that in this case, Long admitted to soliciting at least 114 investors via Internet
and telephone. Further, several investors testified that they received unsolicited e-mail
advertisements and subsequently were contacted by telephone by sales agents who induced them
to invest in Cash Today by promising them a high rate of return. Based on this evidence, the
district court reasonably could conclude that Long solicited a sufficiently “large number of
persons” to warrant application of the mass-marketing enhancement. See U.S.S.G. § 2F1.1 cmt.
n.3.
31
1226 (11th Cir. 2006). Long’s argument is foreclosed by United States v. Olshan,
371 F.3d 1296 (11th Cir. 2004), in which we held that applying both U.S.S.G.
§ 2F1.1(b)(2)(B) (scheme to defraud more than one victim) and (b)(3) (mass-
marketing) to the same conduct does not constitute impermissible double-counting
because “[t]he § 2F1.1(b)(2)(B) enhancement focuses on the victims harmed, while
the § 2F1.1(b)(3) enhancement focuses on the method of inflicting the harm.”10 Id.
at 1301.
3. Reasonableness of Long’s Sentence
Long argues for the first time on appeal that his sentence was procedurally
unreasonable because the district court treated his guidelines range as
presumptively reasonable and failed to comply with the statutory prerequisites in
18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).
We review a final sentence under a deferential abuse-of-discretion
standard.11 Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. —, 128 S. Ct. 586, 591 (2007). Under
10
Although the 1 November 2001 guidelines amendments — which eliminated the
enhancement for scheming to defraud more than one victim and moved the mass-marketing
enhancement into the victim-related specific offense characteristics as an alternative to the 2-
level adjustment for an offense involving more than 10 but fewer than 50 victims — appear to
bolster Long’s argument that applying both enhancements would constitute impermissible
double counting, we note that these amendments were in effect when we decided Olshan in
2004, and thus our holding in that case remains authoritative. See U.S.S.G. App. C, Amend. 617
at Reason for Amendment
11
Although Long failed to object below to the procedural reasonableness of his sentence,
we need not decide whether plain error is the appropriate standard of review because his
sentence can be affirmed as reasonable.
32
this standard, we will reverse a sentence imposed by the district court only if we
find that the district court has made a clear error of judgment, or has applied the
wrong legal standard. See United States v. Frazier, 387 F.3d 1244, 1259 (11th Cir.
2004) (en banc). A sentence may be procedurally or substantively unreasonable, or
both. See United States v. Hunt, 459 F.3d 1180, 1182 n. 3 (11th Cir. 2006). A
sentence may be procedurally unreasonable if the district court improperly
calculates the guidelines range, treats the guidelines as mandatory, fails to consider
the appropriate statutory factors, bases the sentence on clearly erroneous facts, or
fails to adequately explain its reasoning. See Gall, 552 U.S. — , 128 S. Ct. at 597.
Once we determine that the district court has committed no significant
procedural error, we review the substantive reasonableness of the sentence, which
requires us to consider the factors outlined in § 3553(a) and the district court’s
reasons for imposing the particular sentence. United States v. Williams, 435 F.3d
1350, 1355 (11th Cir. 2006) (per curiam).12 “The weight to be accorded any given
12
The § 3553(a) factors the court must consider are: (1) the nature and circumstances of
the offense and the history and characteristics of the defendant; (2) the need to reflect the
seriousness of the offense, to promote respect for the law, and to provide just punishment for the
offense; (3) the need for deterrence; (4) the need to protect the public; (5) the need to provide the
defendant with needed educational or vocational training or medical care; (6) the kinds of
sentences available; (7) the Sentencing Guidelines range; (8) pertinent policy statements of the
Sentencing Commission; (9) the need to avoid unwanted sentencing disparities; and (10) the
need to provide restitution to the victims. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1)-(7).
33
§ 3553(a) factor is a matter committed to the sound discretion of the district court,”
and “we will not substitute our judgment in weighing the relevant factors because
our review is not de novo.” United States v. Williams, 456 F.3d 1353, 1363 (11th
Cir.) (quotation marks and citation omitted), cert. dismissed, 127 S. Ct. 3040
(2007), abrogated on other grounds by Kimbrough v. United States, 552 U.S. — ,
128 S. Ct. 558 (2007). Although we do not apply a presumption of reasonableness
to a sentence that is within the guidelines range, “ordinarily we would expect a
sentence within the Guidelines range to be reasonable.” United States v. Talley,
431 F.3d 784, 788 (11th Cir. 2005) (per curiam).
Upon review of the record, we conclude that Long’s sentence was both
procedurally and substantively reasonable. The district court correctly calculated
Long’s guidelines range, explicitly acknowledged that it had considered the
parties’ arguments as well as the § 3553(a) factors, and concluded that Long’s 72-
month sentence was sufficient but not greater than necessary to address the
seriousness of the offenses and to provide just punishment. Given the nature of
Long’s crimes and his lack of remorse, we cannot conclude that his sentence was
substantively unreasonable in light of pertinent section 3553(a) factors.
III. CONCLUSION
Long appealed his convictions and sentences for conspiracy to commit mail
34
and wire fraud and substantive wire fraud. We conclude that: (1) the district court
properly denied Long’s motion to suppress; (2) the alleged trial errors, even when
viewed cumulatively, did not amount to reversible error; and (3) there was
sufficient evidence from which a reasonable jury could have found Long guilty of
the charged offenses. We also find that Long’s 72-month sentence was both
procedurally and substantively reasonable. Accordingly, Long’s convictions and
sentences are AFFIRMED.
35