united states v. souza, 1st cir. (2014)
TRANSCRIPT
-
7/26/2019 United States v. Souza, 1st Cir. (2014)
1/23
United States Court of AppealsFor the First Circuit
No. 12- 1949
UNI TED STATES OF AMERI CA,
Appel l ee,
v.
RI CHARD SOUZA,
Def endant , Appel l ant .
APPEAL FROM THE UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURT
FOR THE DI STRI CT OF MASSACHUSETTS
[ Hon. Ri char d G. St ear ns, U. S. Di st r i ct J udge]
Bef or e
Howard, Ri ppl e, * and Thompson,Ci r cui t J udges.
Rebecca A. J acobst ei n, wi t h whomOf f i ce of Appel l at e Advocacywas on br i ef , f or appel l ant .
Randal l E. Kr omm, Assi st ant Uni t ed St ates At t orney, wi t h whomCar men M. Or t i z, Uni t ed St at es At t or ney was on br i ef , f or appel l ee.
Apr i l 18, 2014
* Of t he Sevent h Ci r cui t , si t t i ng by desi gnat i on.
-
7/26/2019 United States v. Souza, 1st Cir. (2014)
2/23
HOWARD, Circuit Judge. Ri char d Souza appeal s f r om hi s
convi ct i on and sent ence f or st r uct ur i ng f i nanci al t r ansact i ons t o
evade r eport i ng r equi r ement s. We af f i r m.
I. Background
I n 2004, Souza was hi r ed t o r epai r t he r oof of Lawr ence
Bur t chael l , an el der l y wi dower . The t wo devel oped a cl ose
r el at i onshi p and soon Souza was spendi ng several days a week at
Bur t chael l ' s home.
Dur i ng t hi s t i me per i od, Bur t chael l ' s acquai nt ances began
not i ci ng sympt oms of ment al decl i ne. Usual l y wel l dr essed,
Bur t chael l began l ooki ng di shevel ed. He al so had di f f i cul t y
r emember i ng nei ghbors' names, he woul d get l ost wal ki ng ar ound t he
nei ghborhood, and one t i me he f l ooded hi s house because he f orgot
t o t ur n of f t he bat h. Bur t chael l ' s di mi ni shi ng ment al capaci t y was
al so det ect ed by hi s i nvest ment advi sor , Mar k Fr i ese, who
r egi st er ed concer n wi t h hi s manager .
I n 2006, Souza per suaded Bur t chael l t o put up money t o
pur chase r eal est at e i n Mai ne. Souza t ol d Bur t chael l and Fr i ese
t hat Bur t chael l was a par t ner i n t he i nvest ment , but r eveal ed
nei t her t hat t he ot her par t ner s wer e Souza' s sons, nor t hat
Bur t chael l was pr ovi di ng al l of t he pur chase money. Though Souza
pr omi sed that i n a f ew weeks Bur t chael l woul d recoup hi s money wi t h
i nt er est , Bur t chael l never saw any ret ur n on t he i nvest ment .
-2-
-
7/26/2019 United States v. Souza, 1st Cir. (2014)
3/23
Af t er cl osi ng t he deal , Bur t chael l t ook out an $89, 000
l oan on t he pr oper t y and wi r ed al most al l of t he pr oceeds t o
Souza' s account wi t h Sover ei gn Bank. I n t he f ol l owi ng mont hs,
Souza wi t hdr ew al l of t hese f unds, al ways i n i ncr ement s of l ess
t han $10, 000. For i nst ance, on J une 15, 2006, wi t hi n a per i od of
an hour and a hal f , Souza wi t hdr ew $54, 000 i n si x separate
i nst al l ment s of $9000 at f i ve di f f er ent Sover ei gn br anches.
Banks ar e r equi r ed t o f i l e a r eport when an i ndi vi dual
wi t hdr aws $10, 000 or more. 31 U. S. C. 5313( a) ; 31 C. F. R.
1010. 311. For pur poses of r eport i ng, banks aggr egate an
i ndi vi dual ' s dai l y t r ansact i ons across al l br anches. 31 C. F. R.
1010. 313( b) . Thus, Sover ei gn t r eat ed Souza' s si x J une 15
wi t hdr awal s as one $54, 000 wi t hdr awal and f i l ed a report .
Souza was charged wi t h st r uct ur i ng hi s J une 15
t r ansact i ons f or t he pur pose of evadi ng t he r epor t i ng r equi r ement s,
i n vi ol at i on of 31 U. S. C. 5324( a) ( 3) . Souza cl ai med t hat he had
been f orced t o make mul t i pl e wi t hdr awal s of $9000 because each
Sover ei gn br anch r an out of money. To r ebut t hi s cl ai mand t o show
Souza' s i nt ent t o evade t he repor t i ng r equi r ement s, t he gover nment
pr esent ed evi dence of t he Mai ne t r ansact i on, ar gui ng t hat Souza
wi shed t o avoi d dr awi ng at t ent i on t o hi s wi t hdr awal s because t hey
wer e composed of i l l - got t en f unds. Souza was convi ct ed and
sent enced. He appeal s.
-3-
-
7/26/2019 United States v. Souza, 1st Cir. (2014)
4/23
II. Discussion
Souza cl ai ms vi ol at i ons of hi s r i ght s t o a speedy t r i al ,
t o ef f ect i ve assi st ance of counsel , and t o due pr ocess. He al so
ar gues t hat t he di st r i ct cour t made er r oneous evi dent i ar y r ul i ngs
and sent enci ng er r ors. None of t hese argument s i s per suasi ve.
A. Speedy Trial
Souza cont ends t hat he was deni ed hi s speedy t r i al r i ght .
That r i ght der i ves f r om t wo sources: t he Speedy Tr i al Act ( STA) ,
18 U. S. C. 3161- 74, and t he Si xt h Amendment .
1. STA
The STA pl aces t i me l i mi t s on t wo per i ods i n cr i mi nal
pr oceedi ngs: t he per i od bet ween arr est and i ndi ct ment , and t he
per i od bet ween i ndi ct ment and t r i al . I d. 3161( b) - ( c) . I n
comput i ng t he amount of t i me t hat has el apsed dur i ng t hese per i ods,
t he STA per mi t s cour t s t o excl ude cer t ai n i nt er val s. I d.
3161( h) .
Souza al l eges STA vi ol at i ons i n bot h per i ods. We r evi ew
STA chal l enges de novo as t o l egal r ul i ngs and f or cl ear er r or as
t o f act ual f i ndi ngs. Uni t ed St at es v. Val di vi a, 680 F. 3d 33, 38
( 1st Ci r . ) , cer t . deni ed, 133 S. Ct . 565 ( 2012) . Over al l , however ,
we r evi ew f or abuse of di scr et i on deci si ons t o excl ude i nt er val s of
t i me f r om t he STA count . Uni t ed St at es v. Gat es, 709 F. 3d 58, 64
( 1st Ci r . ) , cer t . deni ed, 134 S. Ct . 264 ( 2013) .
-4-
-
7/26/2019 United States v. Souza, 1st Cir. (2014)
5/23
a. Between Arrest and Indictment
The STA cal l s f or i ndi ct ment no l at er t han t hi r t y days
af t er ar r est . 18 U. S. C. 3161( b) . Souza was ar r est ed on August
12, 2010 and was i ndi ct ed on September 30. He argues t hat onl y
f our t een of t hese f or t y- ni ne days ar e excl udabl e, l eavi ng t hi r t y-
f i ve days - - f i ve mor e t han t he STA per mi t s. Al t hough "del ay
r esul t i ng f r om any pr et r i al mot i on" i s excl udabl e, i d.
3161( h) ( 1) ( D) , i ncl udi ng up t o t hi r t y days "dur i ng whi ch any
pr oceedi ng concer ni ng the def endant i s act ual l y under advi sement by
t he cour t , " i d. 3161( h) ( 1) ( H) , Souza cl ai ms t hat no excl udabl e
t i me r esul t ed f r om a j oi nt mot i on f i l ed by t he par t i es on August
20. He makes t hr ee poi nt s, none of whi ch i s avai l i ng.
Fi r st , Souza ar gues t hat t he j oi nt mot i on, whi ch sought
"enl ar gement of t i me" t o obt ai n an i ndi ct ment , r equest ed r el i ef
t hat t he cour t was i ncapabl e of gr ant i ng. Souza di d not make t hi s
ar gument t o t he di st r i ct cour t . Even i f he had, whi l e i t i s t r ue
t hat cour t s cannot "enl ar ge" t he t i me l i mi t s est abl i shed by t he
STA, cour t s can "excl ude" cer t ai n per i ods i n t he i nt er est of
j ust i ce, see i d. 3161( h) ( 7) ( A) , and t he j oi nt mot i on, was
f unct i onal l y equi val ent t o an ant i ci pat or y mot i on t o excl ude t i me.
Souza does not and coul d not cont end that t he pur el y semant i c
di f f er ence pr ej udi ced the pr oceedi ngs i n any way.
Second, Souza cont ends t hat t he excl usi on of t i me sought
by t he j oi nt mot i on was not i n t he i nt er est of j ust i ce. But i t i s
-5-
-
7/26/2019 United States v. Souza, 1st Cir. (2014)
6/23
i r r el evant whet her t he mot i on' s r easons f or seeki ng excl usi on had
mer i t : t i me was excl udabl e not because t he cour t gr ant ed t he j oi nt
mot i on, but because t he cour t had t he mot i on under advi sement .
Thi r d, Souza asser t s t hat t he t ol l t hat st ops t he cl ock
whi l e a cour t consi der s a pr et r i al mot i on shoul d not appl y when t he
mot i on seeks a cont i nuance. Ot her wi se, says Souza, a part y i nt ent
on excl udi ng t i me coul d obt ai n t hat r esul t si mpl y by f i l i ng a
mot i on. But i n Uni t ed St at es v. Ri char dson, we r ej ect ed t hi s
argument and hel d t hat a mot i on t o cont i nue can tol l t he speedy
t r i al cl ock. 421 F. 3d 17, 31 ( 1st Ci r . 2005) .
Of cour se, as we caut i oned i n Ri char dson, "nei t her
counsel nor di st r i ct cour t s may empl oy measur es f or excl udi ng t i me
f r omt he speedy t r i al cl ock t hat i mper mi ssi bl y f r ust r at e t he STA' s
pur pose of pr ot ect i ng t he shar ed i nt er est of cr i mi nal def endant s
and t he publ i c i n ' br i ngi ng cr i mi nal char ges t o t he bar of j ust i ce
as pr ompt l y as pr act i cabl e. ' " I d. at 29 ( quot i ng Uni t ed St at es v.
Hast i ngs, 847 F. 2d 920, 923 ( 1st Ci r . 1988) ) . As was t r ue of t he
mot i on to cont i nue i n Ri char dson, t he j oi nt mot i on her e "was not
f i l ed as a pr et ext t o avoi d t he consequences of an STA vi ol at i on,
but was f i l ed f or t he l egi t i mat e pur pose of seeki ng a cont i nuance
i n t he i nt er est of j ust i ce. " I d. Counsel f or bot h Souza and t he
gover nment sought t he cont i nuance to car r y on pr eexi st i ng pl ea
negot i at i ons and because each had a l ong- st andi ng vacat i on pl anned.
Si nce we have expr essl y l ef t open t he i ssue whet her per i ods of pl ea
-6-
-
7/26/2019 United States v. Souza, 1st Cir. (2014)
7/23
negot i at i on can pr oper l y be excl uded, Uni t ed St at es v.
Scant l eber r y- Frank, 158 F. 3d 612, 615 ( 1st Ci r . 1998) , a mot i on t o
cont i nue made on t hat basi s, whi l e not guarant eed t o succeed, wi l l
not be deemed pr et ext ual on t hat ground al one. Si mi l ar l y, because
we have hel d t hat " [ a] r easonabl e vacat i on const i t ut es a pl ausi bl e
basi s f or excl udi ng a r el at i vel y br i ef per i od of t i me, " Gat es, 709
F. 3d at 67, a mot i on t o cont i nue made on t hat basi s i s al so not
necessar i l y pr et ext ual .
Nor does t he f act t hat Souza obj ect ed t o t he j oi nt mot i on
r ender i t pr et ext ual . Af t er al l , "def ense counsel has t he power t o
seek an STA cont i nuance wi t hout f i r st i nf or mi ng hi s cl i ent or
obt ai ni ng hi s cl i ent ' s per sonal consent . " I d. at 66. Souza' s
obj ect i on i s mer el y "a dat um f or t he di st r i ct cour t t o consi der i n
i t s anal ysi s of t he ends of j ust i ce, " and must be measur ed i n l i ght
of bot h at t or neys' l egi t i mat e r easons f or r equest i ng a cont i nuance.
I d.
Because t he STA per mi t s a cour t t o excl ude up t o t hi r t y
days whi l e a mot i on i s under advi sement , 18 U. S. C. 3161( h) ( 1) ( D) ,
( H) , t he j oi nt mot i on t ol l ed t he speedy t r i al cl ock begi nni ng on
August 20 and cont i nui ng t hr ough Sept ember 19. Thi s excl usi on
r educes t he count ed number of days bet ween t he August 12 ar r est and
t he Sept ember 30 i ndi ct ment bel ow t hi r t y, and t her ef ore wi t hi n t he
l i mi t s of t he STA.
-7-
-
7/26/2019 United States v. Souza, 1st Cir. (2014)
8/23
b. Between Indictment and Trial
The STA cal l s f or t r i al no l at er t han sevent y days af t er
i ndi ct ment . 18 U. S. C. 3161( c) ( 1) . Souza was i ndi ct ed on
September 30, 2010 and hi s t r i al began on Febr uar y 27, 2012. He
argues t hat onl y 201 of t hese 515 days wer e excl udabl e, l eavi ng 314
days - - 244 more t han t he STA per mi t s.
"[ E] xcl usi ons of t i me not speci f i cal l y chal l enged i n a
mot i on t o di smi ss ar e deemed wai ved. " Gat es, 709 F. 3d at 68
( emphasi s added) . Souza di d not f i l e a mot i on t o di smi ss
chal l engi ng speci f i c i nt er val s i n t he pr et r i al per i od. I nst ead,
t hr ough pr o se f i l i ngs, he pr ot est ed gener al l y about del ay. On
appeal , he aver s t hat t hese gener al pr otest at i ons wer e meant t o
convey t hat t her e wer e no excl udabl e i nt er val s anywhere i n t he
pr et r i al per i od. Thi s mi schar acter i zes hi s f i l i ngs, whi ch
compr i sed vague compl ai nt s of del ay and accusat i ons agai nst t he
cour t , t he gover nment , and hi s at t or neys f or col l udi ng t o i mpai r
hi s speedy t r i al r i ght . Even when vi ewed as char i t abl y t o Souza as
possi bl e, hi s asser t i ons di d not i n any event chal l enge excl usi ons
of t i me dur i ng t he pr et r i al per i od, t hus wai vi ng such chal l enges on
appeal . 1
1 Because we concl ude t hat Souza' s pr o se f i l i ngs f ai l ed t opr eserve chal l enges t o speci f i c excl usi ons of t i me, we need notaddr ess whet her t he di st r i ct cour t aut hor i zed t he t ype of "hybr i dr epr esent at i on" t hat woul d per mi t Souza t o make a pr o se f i l i ngwhi l e repr esent ed by counsel .
-8-
-
7/26/2019 United States v. Souza, 1st Cir. (2014)
9/23
2. Sixth Amendment
Souza al so cont ends t hat t he del ay bet ween hi s ar r est and
t r i al vi ol at ed t he Si xt h Amendment ' s guar ant ee of a speedy t r i al .
We revi ew t he di st r i ct cour t ' s Si xth Amendment deci si on f or abuse
of di scret i on. Uni t ed St at es v. Sant i ago- Becer r i l , 130 F. 3d 11, 21
( 1st Ci r . 1997) . To det er mi ne whet her a Si xt h Amendment vi ol at i on
has occur r ed, a cour t bal ances f our f act or s: "( 1) t he l engt h of t he
del ay, ( 2) t he r easons f or t he del ay, ( 3) t he def endant ' s asser t i on
of hi s r i ght , and ( 4) pr ej udi ce t o t he def endant r esul t i ng f r omt he
del ay. " Uni t ed St at es v. Dowdel l , 595 F. 3d 50, 60 ( 1st Ci r . 2010)
( ci t i ng Bar ker v. Wi ngo, 407 U. S. 514, 530 ( 1972) ) .
a. Length of Delay
Lengt h of del ay, i n addi t i on t o f act or i ng i nt o t he
bal ance, serves as a t r i gger i ng mechani smf or r evi ew, si nce a cour t
wi l l conduct a Si xt h Amendment anal ysi s onl y af t er a def endant has
shown t hat t he per i od of t i me "has cr ossed t he t hr eshol d di vi di ng
or di nar y f r ompr esumpt i vel y pr ej udi ci al del ay. " Dogget t v. Uni t ed
St at es, 505 U. S. 647, 651- 52 ( 1992) ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks
omi t t ed) . Gener al l y, del ay becomes pr ej udi ci al ar ound t he one- year
mark. See i d. at 652 n. 1; Dowdel l , 595 F. 3d at 61.
Here, r oughl y ei ght een mont hs passed bet ween Souza' s
ar r est i n Oct ober 2010 and hi s t r i al i n Febr uar y 2012. For
pur poses of anal ysi s, we wi l l assume, wi t hout deci di ng, t hat t he
ei ght een- mont h del ay est abl i shes a pr esumpt i on of pr ej udi ce,
-9-
-
7/26/2019 United States v. Souza, 1st Cir. (2014)
10/23
t r i gger i ng f ur t her Si xt h Amendment r evi ew. See, e. g. , Sant i ago-
Becer r i l , 130 F. 3d at 21 ( assumi ng that f i f t een- mont h del ay was
pr esumpt i vel y pr ej udi ci al ) .
As f or i t s pl ace i n t he bal anci ng t est , a l engt hi er del ay
r ai ses t he l i kel i hood t hat t he def endant suf f er ed pr ej udi ce.
Dogget t , 505 U. S. at 652. Whi l e t he del ay i n Souza' s case was not
at t he ext r eme end of t he spect r um, see Barker , 407 U. S. at 534
( "I t i s cl ear t hat t he l engt h of del ay bet ween ar r est and t r i al - -
wel l over f i ve year s - - was ext r aor di nar y. ") ; but see Uni t ed St at es
v. Munoz- Franco, 487 F. 3d 25, 61 ( 1st Ci r . 2007) ( "The f i ve year s
t hat el apsed bet ween i ndi ct ment and t r i al i s a t r oubl esome l engt h
of t i me. Nonet hel ess, our i nqui r y has r eveal ed no const i t ut i onal
vi ol at i on. ") , we have hel d t hat a f i f t een- mont h del ay i s
"[ a] r guabl y . . . l ong enough t o t i p t he scal es sl i ght l y i n f avor
of [ t he def endant ' s speedy tr i al ] cl ai m, " Sant i ago- Becer r i l , 130
F. 3d at 22. We wi l l assume f or t he sake of argument t hat t he
ei ght een- mont h del ay i n Souza' s case wei ghs i n hi s f avor , but , as
we expl ai n bel ow, not heavi l y enough t o over come the count er vai l i ng
wei ght s of t he second and f our t h f act or s.
b. Reasons for Delay
Of t he f our f act or s i n t he anal ysi s, exami nat i on of t he
r easons f or del ay i s t he " f ocal i nqui r y. " Munoz- Franco, 487 F. 3d
at 60 ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) . We must f i r st det er mi ne
i f t he del ays wer e at t r i but abl e t o Souza or t o t he gover nment .
-10-
-
7/26/2019 United States v. Souza, 1st Cir. (2014)
11/23
"[ D] el ays sought by [ def ense] counsel ar e or di nar i l y at t r i but abl e
t o t he def endant s they r epr esent . " Ver mont v. Br i l l on, 556 U. S.
81, 85 ( 2009) . For t hose del ays caused by t he gover nment , we must
eval uat e t he under l yi ng reasons:
A del i ber at e at t empt t o del ay t he t r i al i norder t o hamper t he def ense shoul d be wei ght edheavi l y agai nst t he government . A moreneut r al r eason such as negl i gence orovercr owded cour t s shoul d be wei ght ed l essheavi l y but never t hel ess shoul d be consi der edsi nce t he ul t i mat e r esponsi bi l i t y f or suchci r cumst ances must r est wi t h t he gover nmentr at her t han wi t h t he def endant . Fi nal l y, aval i d r eason, such as a mi ssi ng wi t ness,shoul d ser ve t o j ust i f y appr opr i at e del ay.
Bar ker , 407 U. S. at 531 ( f ootnot e omi t t ed) .
Thi s f act or wei ghs agai nst Souza. Much of t he del ay
r esul t ed f r om hi s act i ons or t hose of hi s counsel . Bet ween hi s
ar r est and t he appoi nt ment of hi s ul t i mat e t r i al counsel , Souza
t wi ce vi ol at ed t he t er ms of hi s r el ease, necessi t at i ng f ur t her
pr oceedi ngs, and t hr i ce obt ai ned new counsel , who sought
cont i nuances on sever al occasi ons. Addi t i onal l y, Souza f i l ed t wo
pr et r i al mot i ons, whi ch f ur t her del ayed t he pr oceedi ngs.
The del ays at t r i butabl e t o t he gover nment wer e not
mot i vat ed by a del i ber ate at t empt t o def er t he t r i al . Some wer e
t r aceabl e t o t he f act t hat r epl acement counsel f or t he gover nment
needed t i me t o gai n f ami l i ar i t y wi t h t he case af t er t he i ni t i al
counsel l ef t t he U. S. At t or ney' s Of f i ce. Ot her s r esul t ed f r om t he
medi cal l eave of an I RS agent who was needed t o pr oduce cer t ai n
-11-
-
7/26/2019 United States v. Souza, 1st Cir. (2014)
12/23
document s. These f al l i nt o t he cat egor y of val i d r easons t hat
j ust i f y an appr opr i at e del ay. Fur t her appr opr i at e del ay occur r ed
when t he case was t r ansf er r ed t o a new di st r i ct cour t j udge af t er
t he i ni t i al j udge r et i r ed.
Once t he t r i al dat e was set , i t was cont i nued t wi ce.
Fi r st , t he government moved f or a cont i nuance because counsel had
another t r i al and an appel l at e ar gument schedul ed dur i ng t he same
mont h as Souza' s t r i al . Ther eaf t er , Souza' s counsel moved t o
cont i nue because he had a conf l i ct wi t h t he new t r i al dat e. Al l i n
al l , t he gover nment , as compared t o Souza and hi s counsel , pl ayed
a mi ni mal r ol e i n del ayi ng t he t r i al .
c. Defendant's Assertion of the Right
From t he out set , Souza made i t cl ear t hat he wi shed t o
pr oceed t o t r i al as qui ckl y as possi bl e. Thi s f act or wei ghs i n hi s
f avor , but not enough to over come t he wei ght t hat t he second and
f our t h f act or s car r y agai nst hi m.
d. Prejudice Resulting from the Delay
Pr ej udi ce i s assessed i n l i ght of t he i nt er est s t hat t he
speedy t r i al r i ght was desi gned t o pr ot ect : "( i ) t o pr event
oppr essi ve pr et r i al i ncar cer at i on; ( i i ) t o mi ni mi ze anxi et y and
concer n of t he accused; and ( i i i ) t o l i mi t t he possi bi l i t y t hat t he
def ense wi l l be i mpai r ed. " Bar ker , 407 U. S. at 532.
The l ast of t hese i nt er est s i s t he most ser i ous, as i t
i mpl i cat es " t he f ai r ness of t he ent i r e syst em, " and we begi n wi t h
-12-
-
7/26/2019 United States v. Souza, 1st Cir. (2014)
13/23
i t her e. I d. Souza ar gues t hat evi dence and t est i mony of
wi t nesses was l ost or hamper ed as a resul t of t he del ay bet ween hi s
cr i mi nal conduct , whi ch occur r ed i n 2006, and hi s t r i al , whi ch
occur r ed i n 2012. But most of t hi s per i od i s i r r el evant f or speedy
t r i al pur poses. The speedy t r i al r i ght " at t aches upon ar r est or
i ndi ct ment , whi chever occur s f i r st , " Sant i ago- Becer r i l , 130 F. 3d at
21, and Souza was not arr est ed unt i l August 12, 2010. The del ay i n
obt ai ni ng t he ar r est f ol l owi ng hi s cri mi nal conduct i mpl i cat es
separate r i ght s, see Munoz- Fr anco, 487 F. 3d at 58, not i nvoked by
Souza on appeal . Though Souza specul at es about pr ej udi ce, he
poi nt s t o not hi ng i n the ei ght een- mont h per i od bet ween hi s ar r est
and t r i al t hat i mpai r ed hi s abi l i t y t o mount a def ense.
As t o pr et r i al i ncar cer at i on, we cannot say that t he
del ay bet ween Souza' s ar r est and t r i al caused hi mprej udi ce. Souza
was i ncar cer at ed whi l e awai t i ng t r i al onl y because he f ai l ed t o
abi de by t he condi t i ons of hi s rel ease. And, as t o anxi et y and
concer n, si nce "consi der abl e anxi et y nor mal l y at t ends t he
i ni t i at i on and pendency of cr i mi nal char ges[ , ] . . . onl y undue
pr essur es ar e consi dered. " Uni t ed St at es v. Henson, 945 F. 2d 430,
438 ( 1st Ci r . 1991) ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) . The r ecor d
does not suggest t hat Souza was subj ect t o such undue pr essures.
Wei ghi ng al l f our f actors, i n l i ght of t he f acts t hat
Souza and hi s counsel wer e l ar gel y responsi bl e f or t he del ay and
t hat Souza di d not exper i ence pr ej udi ce as a resul t , we di scer n no
-13-
-
7/26/2019 United States v. Souza, 1st Cir. (2014)
14/23
-
7/26/2019 United States v. Souza, 1st Cir. (2014)
15/23
r equi r ement s. We r evi ew such a chal l enge de novo. Uni t ed St at es
v. Hussei n, 351 F. 3d 9, 14 ( 1st Ci r . 2003) .
Souza' s argument mi sses t he poi nt . Sect i on 5324( a) ( 3)
makes i t a cr i me t o st r uct ur e t r ansact i ons " f or t he pur pose of
evadi ng t he r epor t i ng r equi r ement s. " 31 U. S. C. 5324( a) ( 3)
( emphasi s added) . The st at ut e f ocuses on an i ndi vi dual ' s i nt ent t o
evade t he r eport i ng requi r ement s, not on whet her he succeeds i n
doi ng so. Uni t ed St ates v. Sweeney, 611 F. 3d 459, 471 ( 8t h Ci r .
2010) ( "[ Sect i on] 5324 pr ohi bi t s per sons f r om conduct i ng
t r ansact i ons wi t h t he i nt ent t o evade t he r epor t i ng r equi r ement ,
r egardl ess of whet her a pl an t o evade the r eport i ng r equi r ement
succeeds ( by st ayi ng bel ow t he $10, 000 t hr eshol d) or f ai l s ( by
exceedi ng the $10, 000 t hr eshol d) . " ) ; Uni t ed St at es v. Van Al l en,
524 F. 3d 814, 825 ( 7t h Ci r . 2008) ( "Whet her or not Van Al l en
act ual l y f ool ed Ar cher Bank has no bear i ng on the subst ant i ve
vi ol at i on under 31 U. S. C. 5324( a) . ") . Consi st ent wi t h due
pr ocess, Souza coul d be convi ct ed of st r uct ur i ng hi s t r ansact i ons
i n a way t hat demonst r at es hi s i nt ent t o evade t he repor t i ng
r equi r ement s, even though he f ai l ed to act ual l y evade t hem.
D. Evidentiary Rulings
Accor di ng t o Souza, t he di st r i ct cour t er r ed i n admi t t i ng
evi dence r el at ed t o t he sour ce of t he f unds t hat wer e event ual l y
st r uct ur ed. Thi s i ncl uded evi dence of Bur t chael l ' s pur chase of t he
Mai ne pr oper t y, t he l oan he took out on t hat pr oper t y, and hi s
-15-
-
7/26/2019 United States v. Souza, 1st Cir. (2014)
16/23
t r ansf er of t he l oan pr oceeds t o Souza' s account . We r evi ew such
evi dent i ar y r ul i ngs f or abuse of di scret i on. Uni t ed St at es v.
Gr een, 698 F. 3d 48, 55 ( 1st Ci r . 2012) .
Souza f i r st cl ai ms t hat evi dence of f r audul ent act i vi t y
r el at ed t o t he Mai ne t r ansact i on was not i nt r i nsi c t o t he char ged
cr i me of st r uct ur i ng and, as ext r i nsi c evi dence, compr i sed pr i or
act s t hat wer e i nadmi ssi bl e under Feder al Rul e of Evi dence 404( b) .
I nt r i nsi c evi dence i ncl udes pr i or act s t hat ar e "par t of [ t he]
necessar y descr i pt i on of t he event s l eadi ng up t o t he cr i me[ ] " or
t hat go t o "an el ement of t he char ged of f ense. " Uni t ed St at es v.
Fazal - Ur - Raheman- Fazal , 355 F. 3d 40, 50 ( 1st Ci r . 2004) . Her e,
evi dence of t he f unds' sour ce was par t of t he necessar y descr i pt i on
of t he event s l eadi ng up t o t he st r uct ur i ng; t hat evi dence, as i t
suggest ed Souza knew he had obt ai ned t he f unds i n an i l l i ci t
manner , al so went t o the el ement of hi s i nt ent t o evade t he
r epor t i ng r equi r ement s. The di st r i ct cour t di d not abuse i t s
di scret i on i n t r eat i ng t hi s evi dence as i nt r i nsi c t o t he cri me
charged. 2
Souza al so argues t hat t he evi dence shoul d have been
excl uded under Rul e 403 as unf ai r l y pr ej udi ci al . We r ever se t he
2 Because we concl ude t hat t he evi dence was i nt r i nsi c t o t hechar ged cr i me and went t o t he i ssue of Souza' s i nt ent , we need notaddr ess hi s argument t hat t he evi dence was i nadmi ssi bl e under Rul e404( b) . See Uni t ed St at es v. Mar e, 668 F. 3d 35, 39 ( 1st Ci r . 2012)( ci t i ng Fazal - Ur - Raheman- Fazal f or t he pr oposi t i on t hat "i nt r i nsi cevi dence t hat woul d sat i sf y t he char ged cr i me' s speci f i c i nt entel ement i s not governed by Rul e 404( b) " ) .
-16-
-
7/26/2019 United States v. Souza, 1st Cir. (2014)
17/23
di st r i ct cour t ' s j udgment about t he pr ej udi ci al ef f ect of evi dence
"[ o] nl y rarel y - - and i n ext r aor di nar i l y compel l i ng ci r cumst ances. "
Fr eeman v. Package Mach. Co. , 865 F. 2d 1331, 1340 ( 1st Ci r . 1988) .
Souza aver s t hat evi dence of t he f unds' sour ce l acked pr obat i ve
val ue because t he government coul d have pr oven i t s case excl usi vel y
t hr ough t he st r uct ur e of t he t r ansact i ons. Of cour se, at t r i al t he
gover nment needed t o over come Souza' s asser t i on t hat he was f or ced
t o compl ete hi s wi t hdr awal s as he di d because none of t he bank
br anches had enough cash on hand. And whi l e t heoret i cal l y a j ur y
coul d have i nf er r ed Souza' s i nt ent t o evade t he r epor t i ng
r equi r ement s si mpl y f r om t he st r uct ur e of t he t r ansact i ons
t hemsel ves, evi dence of how Souza obtai ned t he f unds pr ovi ded
i mpor t ant addi t i onal i nf or mat i on wi t h whi ch t o eval uat e hi s i nt ent .
See Uni t ed St ates v. Davenport , 929 F. 2d 1169, 1174 (7t h Ci r . 1991)
( "The Davenpor t s say i t i s i r r el evant t o t hei r gui l t of t he cri me
of whi ch t hey were char ged where t hey got t he money. I t i s not
i r r el evant . The shadi er t he sour ce, t he gr eat er t he Davenpor t s'
mot i ve t o conceal t he money f r omt he aut hor i t i es by taki ng measur es
t o t hwar t t he r epor t i ng r equi r ement s. " ) ; see al so Ol d Chi ef v.
Uni t ed St ates, 519 U. S. 172, 188 ( 1997) ( " [ T] he pr osecut i on may
f ai r l y seek t o pl ace i t s evi dence bef or e t he j ur or s, as much t o
t el l a st or y of gui l t i ness as t o suppor t an i nf er ence of
gui l t . . . . " ) .
-17-
-
7/26/2019 United States v. Souza, 1st Cir. (2014)
18/23
We underst and Souza' s concern about t he pr ej udi ci al
ef f ect t hi s evi dence mi ght have had on t he j ur y. The pr osecut i on
devot ed consi der abl e t i me t o t he Mai ne t r ansact i on. And Souza, i n
t ur n, r easonabl y f el t compel l ed t o r espond t o al l egat i ons of f r aud
i n t hat t r ansact i on. Evi dence t hat Souza def r auded an el der l y,
vul ner abl e man r an t he r i sk of pr ej udi ci ng t he j ur y. See Uni t ed
St at es v. Gi l ber t , 229 F. 3d 15, 24 ( 1st Ci r . 2000) ( not i ng t he
pr ej udi ce t hat can at t end a "mi ni - t r i al " on unchar ged conduct ) .
But Rul e 403 excl udes evi dence onl y when i t s pr ej udi ci al ef f ect
subst ant i al l y out wei ghs i t s pr obat i ve val ue, and we cannot say t hat
t he di st r i ct cour t abused i t s di scr et i on i n r ef usi ng t o f i nd such
subst ant i al out wei ghi ng her e. Mor eover , t he di st r i ct cour t
i nst r uct ed t he j ur y t o f ocus on t he char ged conduct , as opposed t o
any pot ent i al unchar ged cr i me. See Uni t ed St at es v. Wi l l i ams, 717
F. 3d 35, 41- 42 ( 1st Ci r . 2013) ( not i ng t hat l i mi t i ng i nst r uct i on
can hel p pr event unf ai r pr ej udi ce i n t hese si t uat i ons) .
E. Sentencing
Souza ar gues t hat t he di st r i ct cour t ' s sent enci ng
gui del i nes cal cul at i on was er r oneous i n t hr ee r espect s. We r evi ew
t he sent enci ng cour t ' s f act f i ndi ng f or cl ear er r or and i t s
const r uct i on and appl i cat i on of t he gui del i nes de novo. Uni t ed
St at es v. I henacho, 716 F. 3d 266, 276 ( 1st Ci r . 2013) .
-18-
-
7/26/2019 United States v. Souza, 1st Cir. (2014)
19/23
1. Amount of Structured Funds
The di st r i ct cour t f ound t hat t he st r uct ured f unds
consi st ed of a J une 8, 2006 wi t hdr awal of $5000, a J une 12
wi t hdr awal of $5500, a J une 13 wi t hdr awal of $4976. 26, a J une 14
wi t hdr awal of $3700, and the si x J une 15 wi t hdr awal s of $9000 each,
al l t ot al i ng $73, 176. 26. Because t he st r uct ur ed f unds t ot al ed mor e
t han $70, 000, t he cour t appl i ed an ei ght - l evel i ncr ease t o Souza' s
of f ense l evel under U. S. S. G. 2B1. 1( b) ( 1) ( E) .
Souza ar gues t hat t he st r uct ur ed f unds consi st ed of onl y
t he $54, 000 wi t hdr awn i n si x i nst al l ment s on J une 15. Ther ef or e,
says Souza, t he cour t shoul d have appl i ed onl y t he si x- l evel
i ncr ease t hat cor r esponds t o st r uct ur ed f unds t ot al i ng bet ween
$30, 000 and $70, 000. See i d. 2B1. 1( b) ( 1) ( D) . Souza poi nt s out
t hat , whi l e a $9000 wi t hdr awal i s j ust under t he $10, 000 r epor t i ng
t hr eshol d, none of hi s ot her wi t hdr awal s came cl ose t o t he l i mi t .
He al so ar gues t hat t he J une 13 wi t hdr awal of $4976. 26 i s t oo
speci f i c t o show st r uct ur i ng, and l i kel y was used t o pay a bi l l .
We see no cl ear er r or i n t he di st r i ct cour t ' s cal cul at i on
of t he st r uct ur ed f unds. Ther e i s no r equi r ement t hat s t r uct ur i ng
i nvol ve whol e numbers or amount s j ust under $10, 000. Al t hough t he
wi t hdr awal s bet ween J une 8 and J une 14 wer e not i dent i cal t o t hose
of J une 15, t hey shar e enough si mi l ar i t i es t hat t he cour t coul d
have reasonabl y concl uded that al l of t he wi t hdr awal s wer e meant t o
evade t he r epor t i ng r equi r ement s. They al l occur r ed wi t hi n a shor t
-19-
-
7/26/2019 United States v. Souza, 1st Cir. (2014)
20/23
t i me per i od: no more t han one busi ness day el apsed bet ween any of
t he wi t hdr awal s. They al l i nvol ved sever al t housands of dol l ar s.
And t hey al l cl osel y f ol l owed t he deposi t of t he bul k of
Bur t chael l ' s l oan pr oceeds i nt o Souza' s account .
2. Proceeds of Unlawful Activity
The di st r i ct cour t f ound t hat Souza knew t he st r uct ured
f unds wer e t he pr oceeds of unl awf ul act i vi t y, and t hus appl i ed a
t wo- l evel i ncrease under U. S. S. G. 2S1. 3( b) ( 1) ( A) .
Souza argues t hat t here was no evi dence t hat he acqui r ed
t he f unds t hr ough unl awf ul act i vi t y. Accor di ng t o Souza,
Bur t chael l ' s consent t o t he Mai ne t r ansact i on was obt ai ned nei t her
t hr ough f r aud nor t hr ough mi sr epr esent at i on.
The r ecor d t el l s a di f f er ent st or y. Souza mi sr epresent ed
t he nat ur e of t he Mai ne t r ansact i on by f ai l i ng t o di scl ose t o
Bur t chael l and Fr i ese that t he ot her par t ner s wer e Souza' s sons or
t hat Bur t chael l was pr ovi di ng al l of t he pur chase money. Souza
al so pr omi sed i l l usory r et ur ns on t he i nvest ment , and t hen
convi nced Bur t chael l t o take out a l oan on t he pr oper t y and t o
t r ansf er t he bul k of t he l oan pr oceeds t o Souza' s account . Al l of
t hi s pr ovi des enough evi dence t o suppor t t he di st r i ct cour t ' s
f i ndi ng t hat Souza knew t he st r uct ur ed f unds der i ved f r omunl awf ul
act i vi t y.
-20-
-
7/26/2019 United States v. Souza, 1st Cir. (2014)
21/23
3. Vulnerable Victim
The di st r i ct cour t f ound t hat Souza knew or shoul d have
known t hat Bur t chael l was a vul ner abl e vi ct i m, and t hus appl i ed a
t wo- l evel i ncrease under U. S. S. G. 3A1. 1( b) ( 1) . The gui del i nes
def i ne a vul ner abl e vi ct i m as " a per son ( A) who i s a vi ct i m of t he
of f ense of convi ct i on and any conduct f or whi ch t he def endant i s
account abl e under 1B1. 3 ( Rel evant Conduct ) ; and ( B) who i s
unusual l y vul ner abl e due to age, physi cal or ment al condi t i on, or
who i s ot her wi se par t i cul ar l y suscept i bl e t o t he cr i mi nal conduct . "
I d. 3A1. 1 cmt . n. 2.
Souza chal l enges t he vul ner abl e vi ct i m i ncr ease on t wo
gr ounds. Fi r st , he says t hat even i f he def r auded Bur t chael l ,
Bur t chael l was not a vi ct i m of t he char ged cr i me of st r uct ur i ng.
Second, Souza says he di d not know of and had no r eason t o know of
Bur t chael l ' s vul ner abi l i t y.
a. "Victim"
To come wi t hi n t he gui del i nes' def i ni t i on, one need not
be a vi ct i m of t he char ged of f ense so l ong as one i s a vi ct i m of
t he def endant ' s ot her r el evant conduct . I d. Rel evant conduct
i ncl udes al l act s t hat occur r ed dur i ng t he pr epar at i on and
commi ssi on of t he of f ense. See i d. 1B1. 3( a) ( 1) . And f or an
of f ense l i ke st r uct ur i ng, r el evant conduct al so i ncl udes act s t hat
were "par t of t he same cour se of conduct or common scheme or pl an. "
See i d. 1B1. 3( a) ( 2) , 3D1. 2( d) . A common scheme or pl an i nvol ves
-21-
-
7/26/2019 United States v. Souza, 1st Cir. (2014)
22/23
act s connect ed "by at l east one common f act or , such as common
vi ct i ms, common accompl i ces, common purpose, or si mi l ar modus
oper andi . " I d. 1B1. 3 cmt . n. 9( A) .
Souza ar gues t hat any f r aud of whi ch Bur t chael l mi ght
have been a vi ct i m was not r el evant conduct wi t h r espect t o the
char ged of f ense of st r uct ur i ng. We di sagr ee. The f r aud and t he
st r uct ur i ng were par t of a common scheme: wi t hout t he f r aud, Souza
woul d not have acqui r ed t he f unds t hat he went on t o wi t hdr aw
t hr ough st r uct ur ed t r ansact i ons, and t he st r uct ur i ng was meant t o
ext r act wi t hout det ecti on hi s i l l - got t en gai ns. Thi s case i s
si mi l ar t o Uni t ed St at es v. J ohnson, i n whi ch f r aud per pet r at ed
agai nst t el emarket i ng vi ct i ms was deemed rel evant t o t he charged
of f ense of money l aunder i ng, because t he f r aud "pr ovi ded t he
i l l i ci t f unds necessar y t o f i nance addi t i onal cr i mi nal act i vi t y. "
297 F. 3d 845, 873 ( 9t h Ci r . 2002) ; see al so Uni t ed St at es v.
Fi r ment , 296 F. 3d 118, 120- 21 ( 2d Ci r . 2002) ( " [ W] e see no er r or i n
t he di st r i ct cour t ' s appl i cat i on of t he vul ner abl e vi cti m
enhancement t o Fi r ment on t he basi s of t he vul ner abi l i t y of t he
vi ct i ms of t he t el emarket i ng scheme t hat gener ated t he t axabl e
r evenues, despi t e t he f act t hat hi s of f ense of convi ct i on was a t ax
of f ense. ") . I n shor t , t he di str i ct cour t di d not er r i n
det er mi ni ng t hat Bur t chael l was a vi ct i m of conduct t hat was
r el evant t o t he char ged st r uct ur i ng.
-22-
-
7/26/2019 United States v. Souza, 1st Cir. (2014)
23/23
b. "Vulnerable"
The evi dence of Bur t chael l ' s di mi ni shed capaci t y was
consi der abl e, consi st i ng of t est i mony f r om hi s nei ghbor s t hat he
began t o l ook di shevel ed, t hat he had di f f i cul t y r emember i ng t hei r
names, t hat he woul d get l ost wal ki ng around t he nei ghborhood, and
t hat he once f l ooded hi s house by l eavi ng t he bath r unni ng, as wel l
as t est i mony that hi s f i nanci al advi sor had r epor t ed t o hi s manager
concer n about Bur t chael l ' s sl i ppi ng ment al f acul t i es. Coupl ed wi t h
evi dence that Souza spent subst ant i al t i me wi t h Bur t chael l dur i ng
t hi s per i od, we see no cl ear er r or i n t he di st r i ct cour t ' s
det er mi nat i on t hat Souza knew or had r eason t o know of Bur t chael l ' s
vul ner abi l i t y.
III. Conclusion
For t he f or egoi ng r easons, Souza' s convi ct i on and
sent ence are affirmed.
-23-