united states v. colon-ledee, 1st cir. (2014)

7/26/2019 United States v. Colon-Ledee, 1st Cir. (2014)

1/42

United States Court of AppealsFor the First Circuit

No. 13- 1067 UNI TED STATES OF AMERI CA,Appel l ee,

v.

ASTRI D COLN LEDE,Def endant , Appel l ant .

No. 13- 1078 UNI TED STATES OF AMERI CA,Appel l ee,

v.

EDGARDO COLN LEDE,Def endant , Appel l ant .

APPEALS FROM THE UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURTFOR THE DI STRI CT OF PUERTO RI CO

[ Hon. Ai da M. Del gado Col n, U. S. Di st r i ct J udge]

Bef or e

Lynch, Chi ef J udge,Tor r uel l a and Li pez, Ci r cui t J udges.

V ct or M. Agr ai t - Def i l l f or appel l ant Ast r i d Col n Lede.Raf ael F. Cast r o- Lang, wi t h whom Ni col s Noguer as Car t agena

was on br i ef , f or appel l ant Edgar do Col n Lede.Char l es Rober t Wal sh, J r . , Assi st ant Uni t ed St at es At t or ney,

wi t h whom Rosa Emi l i a Rodr guez- Vl ez, Uni t ed St at es At t or ney,

Nel son Pr ez- Sosa, Assi st ant Uni t ed St at es At t or ney, Chi ef ,Appel l at e Di vi si on, and J ohn A. Mat hews I I , Assi st ant Uni t ed St at esAt t or ney, wer e on br i ef , f or appel l ee.

November 5, 2014


2/42

LIPEZ, Circuit Judge. Appel l ant s i n t hi s consol i dat ed

appeal ar e a br ot her and si st er who wer e f ound gui l t y of mul t i pl e

bankrupt cy- r el at ed cr i mes desi gned t o conceal t he br ot her ' s asset s

and t her eby avoi d hi s obl i gat i ons to credi t or s. The pai r asser t a

host of t r i al and sent enci ng er r or s, none of whi ch we f i nd

mer i t or i ous. Accor di ngl y, we af f i r mbot h si bl i ngs' convi ct i ons and

sent ences.

I. Factual Background

We pr esent t he f act s as t he j ur y coul d have f ound t hem,

r eser vi ng addi t i onal det ai l f or our anal yses of appel l ant s' cl ai ms.

I n August 2002, Edgardo Col n Lede, a pl ast i c surgeon,

and hi s si st er , Ast r i d Col n Lede, a bankrupt cy at t or ney,

col l abor at ed on t he t r ansf er of Edgar do' s oceanf r ont r esi dence and

of f i ce t o I nvest ment s Unl i mi t ed ( " I U" ) , a cor por at i on whol l y owned

and cont r ol l ed by Edgar do. Ast r i d dr af t ed t he deed and r epr esent ed

I U i n t he t r ansact i on as i t s pr esi dent . The pr oper t y, known as

Ml aga #1, had an outst andi ng mor t gage of about $720, 000, and t he

deed st at es t hat Edgar do sol d i t t o I U t o ext i ngui sh a $40, 000

debt . Edgar do r epor t ed i n hi s l at er f i l i ngs i n bankrupt cy cour t

t hat he l eased t he pr oper t y f r om t he cor por at i on af t er t he

t r ansf er , but t he mor t gage remai ned i n hi s name and he cont i nued t o

t ake t he mor t gage i nt er est deduct i on on hi s per sonal t ax ret ur n.

I n May 2003, appr oxi matel y ni ne mont hs af t er t he t r ansf er

of Ml aga #1, Edgar do f i l ed a vol unt ar y pet i t i on f or Chapt er 7

-2-


3/42

bankrupt cy, wi t h Ast r i d ser vi ng as hi s at t or ney. At t hat t i me, he

r epor t ed a debt of $100, 000 t o the Puer t o Ri co Tr easur y Depar t ment

and f aced about t went y mal pr act i ce sui t s. I n t he St at ement of

Fi nanci al Af f ai r s ( "SOFA") f i l ed wi t h hi s bankr upt cy pet i t i on,

Edgardo di d not di scl ose hi s ownershi p of I U and Ml aga #1 or t hat

he had t r ansf er r ed t he pr oper t y t o I U l ess t han a year ear l i er . 1

I n Oct ober 2003, Edgardo f i l ed an amended pet i t i on whose support i ng

document s di scl osed some addi t i onal pr oper t i es, but he agai n f ai l ed

t o r epor t t he Ml aga #1 t r ansact i on or hi s owner shi p of I U. The

newl y di scl osed pr oper t i es were heavi l y encumber ed, and t her ef or e

di d not add t o t he f unds avai l abl e f or cr edi t or s. Ast r i d al so

si gned t he amended pet i t i on as Edgar do' s l egal r epr esent at i ve i n

t he bankrupt cy. I n bot h t he or i gi nal and amended pet i t i ons,

Edgardo r eport ed t hat he rent ed Ml aga #1 f r om I U.

I n November 2003, Edgar do l i ed under oat h at a meet i ng of

hi s cr edi t or s convened by t he bankrupt cy t r ust ee, t est i f yi ng t hat

I U' s st ockhol der s l i ved i n Chi cago and wer e not r el at ed t o hi m. He

al so report ed t hat hi s onl y r el at i onshi p wi t h I U was an agr eement

t o r ent Ml aga #1. Ast r i d, who at t ended t he meet i ng as Edgardo' s

1 A St at ement of Fi nanci al Af f ai r s " i s t o be compl et ed byever y debt or . " B 7 ( Of f i ci al For m 7) ( 04/ 13) . The cur r ent l y

r equi r ed i nf or mat i on i ncl udes a l i st of pr oper t y t r ansf er s, ot hert han f or busi ness, "t r ansf er r ed ei t her absol ut el y or as secur i t ywi t hi n two years i mmedi at el y pr ecedi ng t he commencement of t hi scase. " I d. ( emphasi s i n or i gi nal ) ; see 11 U. S. C. 521( a) ( 1) ( B) ( i i i ) ; Fed. R. Bankr . P. 1007( b) ( 1) ( d) . At t he t i meEdgar do f i l ed hi s Chapt er 7 pet i t i on, t he t r ansf er per i od was oneyear precedi ng commencement of t he case.

-3-


4/42

at t or ney, subsequent l y gave t he t r ust ee copi es of commer ci al and

r esi dent i al l eases t hat pur por t ed t o show t hat Edgar do was r ent i ng

Ml aga #1 f r om I U. Based on Edgar do' s f i l i ngs and hi s

r epr esent at i ons at t he cr edi t or s' meet i ng, t he t r ust ee f ound t hat

t her e wer e no asset s t hat coul d be l i qui dat ed t o obt ai n f unds t o

pay cr edi t ors and, on December 28, 2004, t he t r ust ee f i l ed a Report

of No Di st r i but i on.

I n J ul y and August 2006, dur i ng t he pendency of t he

bankr upt cy case and wi t hout not i ce t o t he t r ust ee or bankrupt cy

cour t , Edgar do arr anged f or I U t o pur chase t hr ee pi eces of

proper t y: a penthouse condomi ni um known as Laguna Gardens V PHP

( f or $195, 000) , a bui l di ng known as El Convent o ( f or $490, 000) , and

an adj acent l ot next t o El Convent o i dent i f i ed as Ant onsant i ( f or

$68, 000) . Edgar do deposi t ed cash i nt o I U' s bank account t o f und

t he pur chases, and Ast r i d pai d t he amount s due at t he cl osi ngs wi t h

manager ' s checks dr awn on I U' s account . 2 Ast r i d r epr esent ed I U as

i t s pr esi dent f or each of t he t hr ee t r ansact i ons, execut i ng t he

deeds at each cl osi ng.

The decept i on began t o unr avel i n l at e 2006 when a

credi t or ' s obj ect i on t o t he Repor t of No Di st r i but i on l ed t he

2 A "manager ' s check, " al so known as a " cashi er ' s check" or"of f i ci al check, " i s a check wr i t t en by a bank on i t s own f unds.See ht t p: / / www. busi nessdi ct i onar y. com/ def i ni t i on/ cashi er - s-check. ht ml . Such checks f r equent l y ar e pur chased by i ndi vi dual sf or use i n t r ansact i ons r equi r i ng a secur e met hod of payment . Seeht t p: / / www. r obi nsonsbank. com. ph/ br anchbanki ng. do?i t em_i d=13545.

-4-


5/42

bankrupt cy t r ust ee t o l ook mor e cl osel y at t he Ml aga #1 pr oper t y.

A r eal t or hi r ed by the t r ust ee di scover ed a "f or sal e" si gn on t he

pr oper t y and, upon i nqui r i ng, l ear ned t hat t he sel l er was Edgar do.

The t r ust ee' s ensui ng i nvest i gat i on r eveal ed Edgardo' s pr i or sal e

of t he pr oper t y to I U and Ast r i d' s r ol e i n t he t r ansact i on,

pr ompt i ng t he f i l i ng of an adver sary compl ai nt i n t he bankrupt cy

case on December 14. The t r ust ee al l eged i n t he compl ai nt t hat

Edgar do had t r ansf er r ed t he pr oper t y t o I U "wi t h an act ual i nt ent

t o hi nder , del ay or def r aud" cr edi t or s, and he demanded t hat t he

t r ansf er be set asi de and t he pr oper t y decl ar ed par t of Edgar do' s

bankrupt cy est at e. The t r ust ee al so sought sanct i ons agai nst

Ast r i d, i ncl udi ng damages and at t or ney' s f ees i n f avor of t he

bankrupt cy est at e, and f i l ed a not i ce i n t he r eal pr oper t y r egi st r y

al er t i ng t hi r d par t i es t o t he t i t l e cl ai magai nst Ml aga #1. Lat er

i n t he mont h, Ast r i d, as I U' s pr esi dent , si gned annual r epor t s f or

t he company f or t he year s 2001 t o 2005. 3

Devel opment s on t wo f r ont s qui ckl y f ol l owed t he f i l i ng of

t he adver sary pr oceedi ng. On J anuar y 5, 2007, Ast r i d wi t hdr ew f r om

t he bankr upt cy case and i nf ormed t he bankr upt cy cour t t hat she had

r esi gned her posi t i on as I U' s pr esi dent . Meanwhi l e, Edgar do

ar r anged a hur r i ed sal e of Ml aga #1 t o hi s gi r l f r i end' s par ent s,

wi t h t he cl osi ng t aki ng pl ace on J anuar y 6, Thr ee Ki ngs Day, a

3 Ast r i d i s l i st ed as bot h pr esi dent and t r easur er i n t her epor t s. Angel a Lede, Ast r i d and Edgar do' s mot her , i s l i st ed assecretary.

-5-


6/42

si gni f i cant hol i day i n Puer t o Ri co and an unusual day f or such a

t r ansact i on. Repr esent i ng I U at t he cl osi ng was Myrna Ci nt r n

Est r ada ( "Ci nt r n" ) , Edgar do' s cousi n who ser ved as hi s housekeeper

and who had been newl y i nst al l ed as I U' s presi dent t o repl ace

Ast r i d. The sal es pr i ce was $1. 1 mi l l i on, wi t h $410, 000 due f r om

t he buyer s, Lui s Sant i ago Apont e ( "Sant i ago" ) and Yol anda Lebr n

Mat os ( "Lebr n" ) , t he l at t er f i gur e bei ng r oughl y t he amount i n

excess of t he out st andi ng mor t gage on t he pr opert y.

On J anuary 8 and 12, manager ' s checks t ot al i ng $410, 000

and made out t o I nvest ment s Unl i mi t ed were deposi t ed i nt o I U' s bank

account , one i n t he amount of $205, 000 on t he ear l i er dat e and t wo

f or $102, 500 on t he l at er dat e. The l ar ger check and one of t he

t wo smal l er ones was obt ai ned i n Sant i ago' s name, and t he thi r d

check was obtai ned i n Lebr n' s name. On each of t he t wo days t he

deposi t s wer e made, or short l y ther eaf t er , Edgar do wr ot e f our

checks on I U' s account f or $51, 250 each - - a t ot al of ei ght checks4

- - t o t he f ol l owi ng i ndi vi dual s: Ci nt r n, Raf ael Vaquer , Mar i a

Boni l l a Hernndez, and Reynal do Cordero Ci nt r n. 5 Each of t he

4 The FBI agent who t est i f i ed t o t hese t r ansact i ons, asdepi ct ed i n a summar y char t , st at ed t hat he coul d not t el l f r om ar evi ew of t he document s who was aut hor i zed t o si gn checks on I U' saccount . However , abundant evi dence i ndi cat ed t hat Edgardo

cont r ol l ed I U and i t s f unds.5 A sl i ght var i at i on occur r ed i n one of t he names. The f i r st

batch i ncl uded a check made out t o Raf ael Vaquer , who t est i f i edt hat hi s wi f e i s Edgar do' s cousi n. The second batch i ncl uded onemade out t o Raf ael Vaquer Camacho. Cordero, Ci nt r n' s son,t est i f i ed t hat hi s f i r st name was spel l ed i ncor r ect l y on t he

-6-


7/42

ei ght I U checks was used t o purchase a manager ' s check i n t he same

amount made out t o t he same i ndi vi dual s. Al t hough t he manager ' s

checks cont ai ned endorsement si gnatur es on t he back, al l f our

payees - - al l f ami l y member s of Edgar do - - deni ed r ecei vi ng or

endor si ng t he checks. Al l of t he checks appar ent l y wer e r et ur ned

t o t he account s of Sant i ago and Lebr n.

The adver sar y proceedi ng i n Edgar do' s bankr upt cy case was

r esol ved i n March 2008. Edgardo and Ast r i d both accept ed a Par t i al

Set t l ement Agr eement f i ndi ng t hat Ml aga #1 was pr oper t y of t he

bankrupt cy est ate and r equi r i ng Edgar do t o r esci nd t he sal e t o

Sant i ago and Lebr n. Edgar do f ur t her agr eed t hat , i f t he pr oceeds

f r om t he t r ust ee' s sal e of Ml aga #1 di d not suf f i ce t o pay al l

cl ai ms and cost s, 6 t he t r ust ee coul d r eact i vat e t he adver sar y

pr oceedi ng and seek t he shor t f al l f r om sal e of t he pr oper t i es

Edgar do pur chased i n 2006 - - t he Laguna Gardens V PHP, El Convent o,

and Ant onsant i . 7 Edgardo subsequent l y f i l ed amended schedul es wi t h

checks, and t hat i t shoul d have been spel l ed wi t h an " i " ( i . e. ,"Rei nal do") r at her t han a "y. "

6 The r ecor d i ndi cat es t hat al l cl ai ms wer e pai d i n f ul l . Thet r ust ee sol d Ml aga #1 i n J ul y 2008 f or $1. 45 mi l l i on, wi t h t hebankrupt cy est at e r ecei vi ng t he sumover t he t hen- cur r ent $700, 000

mort gage. Edgardo personal l y pai d some cr edi t ors wi t h f unds thatwere out si de t he bankr upt cy est ate.

7 The agr eement pr ovi ded al t er nat i vel y t hat , i f t he sal e ofMl aga #1 was i nsuf f i ci ent t o pay al l credi t or s i n f ul l , Edgar docoul d choose t o pay t he def i ci ency wi t h per sonal f unds wi t hi nt hi r t y days t o avoi d sal e of t he t hr ee pr oper t i es.

-7-


8/42

t he bankrupt cy cour t t hat r epor t ed, i nt er al i a, hi s 100 per cent

owner shi p of I U. 8

A year l at er , i n Apr i l 2009, Edgar do and Ast r i d wer e

char ged i n an ei ght - count i ndi ct ment wi t h var i ous bankrupt cy-

r el at ed cr i mes, i ncl udi ng conspi r acy t o conceal pr oper t y bel ongi ng

t o Edgar do' s bankrupt cy est at e and t o f r audul ent l y conceal and

t r ansf er hi s and I U' s pr oper t y wi t h t he i nt ent t o def eat t he

bankrupt cy l aws, as wel l as a subst ant i ve of f ense al l egi ng t hat

t hey conceal ed t he pr oper t y. See 18 U. S. C. 371, 152( 1) & ( 7) .

The f i r st f i ve count s ci t ed t he si bl i ngs' conceal ment of Edgardo' s

owner shi p i nt er est s i n I U and Ml aga #1 and the t r ansf er of f unds

t hr ough I U t o pur chase t he t hr ee pr oper t i es i n 2006. Count Si x

char ged Edgar do al one wi t h t he f r audul ent t r ansf er of Ml aga #1 i n

J anuar y 2007, i n vi ol at i on of 18 U. S. C. 152( 7) . Count Seven

char ged hi mwi t h l aunder i ng the pr oceeds of t he Ml aga #1 "sal e" i n

J anuar y 2007 by conver t i ng t he t wo $205, 000 payment s i nt o ei ght

cashi er ' s checks payabl e to f our i ndi vi dual s who "had no f i nanci al

i nt er est i n t he t r ansact i on or I nvest ment s Unl i mi t ed, " i n vi ol at i on

of 18 U. S. C. 1956. Count Ei ght was based on conduct unr el ated t o

t he acti vi t i es at i ssue i n t hi s appeal . 9

8 The bankr upt cy case was cl osed i n November 2013 af t er t het r ust ee f i l ed a f i nal r epor t , but i t was r eopened a f ew days l at erat Edgardo' s r equest so t hat he coul d pur sue a pendi ng mot i on f ora r el ease of l i ens.

9 Count Ei ght al l eged t hat Edgar do had f r audul ent l yt r ansf err ed and conceal ed $75, 000 i n March 2002, bef ore t he

-8-


9/42

Af t er a sevent een- day t r i al i n J anuar y and Febr uar y 2012,

a j ur y f ound Edgardo gui l t y on Count s One thr ough Seven and Ast r i d

gui l t y on al l f i ve count s agai nst her . Edgar do was acqui t t ed of

t he f r audul ent t r ansf er al l eged i n Count Ei ght . The di st r i ct cour t

sent enced Edgardo t o si xt y mont hs' i mpr i sonment on each of Count s

One t hrough Si x and sevent y- t wo mont hs' i mpr i sonment on Count

Seven, t he money- l aunder i ng cr i me, al l t o be served concur r ent l y.

The cour t sent enced Ast r i d t o a t er m of t hi r t y- si x mont hs. The

di st r i ct cour t gr ant ed Ast r i d' s r equest f or r el ease on bai l pendi ng

appeal so that she coul d car e f or her ai l i ng mot her , condi t i oned on

her mot her ' s cont i nui ng need f or hel p. Edgar do began servi ng hi s

t erm i n May 2013.

On appeal , appel l ant s chal l enge bot h t hei r convi ct i ons

and sent ences, each assert i ng mul t i pl e cl ai ms of er r or . They

i nsi st t hat t he evi dence was i nsuf f i ci ent t o suppor t t hei r

convi ct i ons on some or al l count s, and t hei r common cl ai ms al so

i ncl ude an obj ecti on t o t he di st r i ct cour t ' s si xt een- l evel i ncrease

i n t hei r base of f ense l evel s under t he sent enci ng gui del i nes.

Edgar do i ncl udes among hi s cl ai ms a cont ent i on t hat t he Par t i al

Set t l ement Agr eement , whi ch br ought Ml aga #1 i nt o hi s bankr upt cy

est at e, const i t ut ed a wai ver by t he gover nment of al l char ges based

on conduct t hat was cur ed by hi s cor r ect i ve act i ons. Ast r i d

t r ansf er of Ml aga #1 i n August 2002 and t he bankr upt cy f i l i ng i nMay2003.

-9-


10/42

i ncl udes among her cl ai ms a cont ent i on t hat t he di st r i ct cour t

abused i t s di scr et i on by denyi ng her mot i on i n l i mi ne t o excl ude

pr ej udi ci al evi dence r el at i ng t o her own bankrupt cy pr oceedi ngs i n

2000.

We addr ess t hese ar gument s i n t ur n, i dent i f yi ng i n each

i nst ance whet her t he chal l enge i s br ought by Edgar do, Ast r i d, or

bot h si bl i ngs.

II. Edgardo: Government Waiver

Edgar do asser t s t hat t he Par t i al Set t l ement Agr eement i n

hi s bankr upt cy case ef f ected a wai ver by t he government of t he

f r aud, conceal ment , and money l aunder i ng charges l odged agai nst hi m

and, hence, ent i t l ed hi m t o a j udgment of acqui t t al on al l count s.

He f r ames t hi s ar gument i n t erms of est oppel : t he government i s

est opped f r omchar gi ng hi mcr i mi nal l y f or conceal i ng hi s owner shi p

of Ml aga #1 and I U and f ai l i ng t o di scl ose t he t r ansact i ons

associ ated wi t h them, because t he t r ust ee and bankr upt cy cour t

accept ed the amended bankr upt cy schedul es t hat r emedi ed any

i l l egal i t y i n hi s pr i or conduct . I n advanci ng t hi s ar gument ,

Edgar do i nvokes bot h equi t abl e est oppel and j udi ci al est oppel .

A. Equitable Estoppel

I n gener al , cour t s appl y equi t abl e est oppel " t o pr event

i nj ust i ce when an i ndi vi dual det r i ment al l y and pr edi ct abl y r el i es

on t he mi sr epr esent at i on of anot her . " Nagl e v. Act on- Boxbor ough

Reg' l Sch. Di st . , 576 F. 3d 1, 3 ( 1st Ci r . 2009) . The doct r i ne i s

-10-


11/42

used spar i ngl y agai nst t he gover nment , i d. , and a par t y seeki ng t o

equi t abl y est op t he gover nment must show "at l east . . . ' an

af f i r mat i ve mi sr epr esent at i on or af f i r mat i ve conceal ment of a

mat er i al f act by t he gover nment , ' " Shaf mast er v. Uni t ed St at es, 707

F. 3d 130, 136 ( 1st Ci r . 2013) ( quot i ng Ram r ez- Car l o v. Uni t ed

St at es, 496 F. 3d 41, 49 ( 1st Ci r . 2007) ) . See al so Heckl er v.

Cmt y. Heal t h Ser vs. of Cr awf or d Cnt y. , I nc. , 467 U. S. 51, 60 ( 1984)

( not i ng t hat " i t i s wel l set t l ed t hat t he Gover nment may not be

est opped on t he same t erms as any other l i t i gant " ) . Here, Edgardo

ci t es no af f i r mat i ve st at ement by t he t r ust ee or bankrupt cy cour t

t hat t he Set t l ement Agr eement , and Edgardo' s f i l i ng of amended

schedul es, woul d cl eanse hi s pr i or unl awf ul conduct and pr ot ect hi m

f r om cri mi nal pr osecut i on.

Edgardo suggest s t hat t he mi sr epr esent at i on r equi r ement

i s met t hr ough t he bankr upt cy cour t ' s al l owance of hi s amendment s,

whi ch he equates wi t h a st atement by t he cour t t hat hi s conduct had

become accept abl e and, consequent l y, i mmune f r om cr i mi nal

l i abi l i t y. Edgar do, however , r eads f ar t oo much i nt o t he bar e f act

t hat t he bankr upt cy cour t appr oved hi s amendment s. Under t he

Feder al Rul es of Bankr upt cy Procedur e, a debt or i s per mi t t ed t o

amend a schedul e "as a mat t er of cour se at any t i me bef ore t he case

i s cl osed. " Fed. R. Bankr. P. 1009( a) ; see al so I n r e Hanni gan,

409 F. 3d 480, 481 ( 1st Ci r . 2005) . Al t hough a bankr upt cy j udge has

t he di scr et i on t o deny an amendment based on t he debtor ' s bad

-11-


12/42

f ai t h, see, e. g. , Mal l ey v. Agi n, 693 F. 3d 28, 30- 31 ( 1st Ci r .

2012) , 10 t he cour t ' s accept ance of amendment s does not necessar i l y

mean t hat t he cour t has f ound no mi sconduct . Where, as here, t he

of f er ed amendment s pl ai nl y benef i t t ed cr edi t or s, t he deci si on t o

accept t he amendment s coul d not possi bl y ref l ect any f orgi veness by

t he cour t of t he under l yi ng conduct t hat r equi r ed t he amendment s.

Hence, t her e was no mi sr epr esent at i on t o gi ve r i se t o equi t abl e

est oppel .

B. Judicial Estoppel

To est abl i sh j udi ci al est oppel , a l i t i gant must show t hat

an opposi ng par t y i s pr essi ng a l i t i gat i on posi t i on i nconsi st ent

wi t h a posi t i on t he par t y successf ul l y asser t ed pr evi ousl y, and t he

new posi t i on woul d unf ai r l y advant age that par t y i f t he cour t

accept ed i t . See Knowl t on v. Shaw, 704 F. 3d 1, 10 ( 1st Ci r . 2013) ;

Per r y v. Bl um, 629 F. 3d 1, 9 ( 1st Ci r . 2010) . Edgar do ar gues t hat

t he gover nment ' s f i l i ng of cr i mi nal char ges was i nconsi st ent wi t h

10 We not e t hat t he Supr eme Cour t has r ecent l y hel d thatbankrupt cy cour t s do not have "a gener al , equi t abl e power . . . t odeny exempt i ons based on a debt or ' s bad- f ai t h conduct . " See Law v.Si egel , 134 S. Ct . 1188, 1196 ( 2014) ( emphasi s added) . I n Mal l eyand t he case i t ci t es f or t he bad- f ai t h pr i nci pl e, I n r e Hanni gan,409 F. 3d 480 ( 1st Ci r . 2005) , we af f i r med bankrupt cy cour t or der st hat had r el i ed on t he debt or s' bad f ai t h t o l i mi t exempt i ons. SeeMal l ey, 693 F. 3d at 30 ( af f i r mi ng sur char ge agai nst exempt pr oper t y

t o of f set f r audul ent conceal ment of non- exempt pr oper t y) ; I n r eHanni gan, 409 F. 3d at 484 ( af f i r mi ng deni al of amendment t ohomest ead exempt i on as a sanct i on f or bad f ai t h) . Al t hough Lawappear s t o over r ul e Mal l ey and Hanni gan t o the ext ent t hey l i mi t edexempt i ons based on bad- f ai t h conduct , t he Supr eme Cour t ' s r ul i ngdoes not r est r i ct t he bankrupt cy cour t ' s di scret i on concer ni ngamendment s unr el at ed t o exempt i ons - - as was t he si t uat i on here.

-12-


13/42

t he bankrupt cy cour t ' s pr i or j udgment t o accept t he Par t i al

Set t l ement Agr eement . He asser t s t hat t he set t l ement "benef i t ed

t he Tr ust ee and t he credi t ors beyond what t hey woul d have obt ai ned

i n an adver sar y pr oceedi ng. " Hence, he ar gues t hat i t i s unf ai r t o

al l ow t he government t o pr osecut e hi m f or f r aud and conceal ment

when, "by t he t i me t he i ndi ct ment was f i l ed[ , ] t he schedul es wer e

cor r ect and t he est at e compl et e, al l wi t h t he bl essi ng of t he

Bankrupt cy Cour t . "

Edgar do of f er s no case suppor t , however , f or hi s

cont ent i on t hat t he deci si on of a bankrupt cy t r ust ee or bankrupt cy

cour t t o set t l e cl ai ms of mi sconduct i n a bankrupt cy case-- here,

t he conceal ment set f or t h i n t he adver sar y pr oceedi ng t hat was

r esol ved wi t h t he Par t i al Set t l ement Agr eement - - can est op t he

Uni t ed St at es At t or ney f r om subsequent l y f i l i ng cr i mi nal char ges.

The government emphasi zes t he r equi r ement t hat t he same par t y

asser t cont r adi ct or y posi t i ons, and i t i nsi st s t hat t he Chapt er 7

t r ust ee and t he Uni t ed St at es At t or ney ar e not i nt er changeabl e.

See Uni t ed St at es v. Modanl o, 954 F. Supp. 2d 384, 388 ( D. Md.

2013) ( st at i ng t hat t he Uni t ed St at es At t or ney "i s not t he same

par t y as nor i s i t i n pr i vi t y wi t h t he U. S. Tr ust ee, " as t he t wo

of f i ci al s "oper at e pur suant t o compl et el y di f f er ent st at ut or y

pur poses, power s, and i nt er est s, " wi t h di st i nct agendas) . I ndeed,

cour t s have r ecogni zed i n t he pr ecl usi on cont ext t he f ol l y of

t r eat i ng t he gover nment as a si ngl e ent i t y i n whi ch r epr esent at i on

-13-


14/42

by one gover nment agent i s necessar i l y r epr esent at i on f or al l

segment s of t he government . SeeUni t ed St at es v. Al ky Ent er s. ,

I nc. , 969 F. 2d 1309, 1314- 15 ( 1st Ci r . 1992) ( hol di ng t hat t he

I nt erst ate Commerce Commi ss i on was not i n pr i vi t y wi t h t he U. S.

At t or ney Gener al , and r ej ect i ng appl i cabi l i t y of r es j udi cat a

because t he I CC "di d not have st at ut or y aut hor i t y t o r epr esent t he

Uni t ed St at es' i nt er est " i n t he ear l i er pr oceedi ng) ; see al so

Uni t ed St at es v. Hi ckey, 367 F. 3d 888, 893 ( 9t h Ci r . 2004) ( hol di ng

t hat t he Secur i t i es and Exchange Commi ss i on and t he Uni t ed St at es

At t or ney wer e "not t he same par t y" f or pur poses of col l at er al

est oppel because, i nt er al i a, t he SEC "was not act i ng as t he

f eder al sover ei gn vi ndi cat i ng t he cr i mi nal l aw of t he Uni t ed

St at es" ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) ) . 11 Li kewi se, i n t he

cont ext of j udi ci al est oppel , t he gover nment i n al l i t s gui ses

cannot i nevi t abl y be vi ewed as a si ngl e par t y.

We need not compar e t he r ol es of t he government par t i es

i n t he pr oceedi ngs at i ssue her e, however , because, as expl ai ned

above, t her e si mpl y wer e no i nconsi st ent posi t i ons t aken. I n

11 We have recogni zed t hat t here ar e occasi ons when pr i vi t yexi st s " ' between of f i cers of t he same government so t hat a j udgmenti n a sui t bet ween a par t y and a r epr esent at i ve of t he Uni t ed St at esi s r es j udi cat a i n r el i t i gat i on of t he same i ssue bet ween t hat

par t y and anot her of f i cer of t he gover nment . ' " Al ky Ent er s. , 969F. 2d at 1312 ( quot i ng Sunshi ne Ant hr aci t e Coal Co. v. Adki ns, 310U. S. 381, 402- 03 ( 1940) ) . However , " [ t ] he cr uci al poi nt i s whet heror not i n t he ear l i er l i t i gat i on t he r epr esent at i ve of t he Uni t edSt at es had aut hor i t y t o r epr esent i t s i nt er est s i n a f i naladj udi cat i on of t he i ssue i n cont r over sy. " Sunshi ne Ant hr aci t eCoal Co. , 310 U. S. at 403.

-14-


15/42

bankr upt cy cour t , Edgardo secur ed a st ay of t he adver sar y

pr oceedi ng and, assumi ng hi s compl i ance wi t h t he Par t i al Set t l ement

Agr eement , he gai ned pr ot ect i on f r om t he possi bi l i t y of sanct i ons

under bankrupt cy l aw. See, e. g. , Law v. Si egel , 134 S. Ct . 1188,

1198 ( 2014) ( not i ng t hat bankrupt cy cour t s have "aut hor i t y t o

r espond t o debt or mi sconduct wi t h meani ngf ul sanct i ons, " i ncl udi ng

denyi ng t he debt or a di schar ge and order i ng payment of at t orney' s

f ees and ot her expenses ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) ( ci t i ng

Fed. R. Bankr . P. 9011( c) ( 2) ) . Ther e was no r ef er ence i n t he

agr eement t o t he possi bi l i t y of cr i mi nal char ges. Whi l e Edgar do

may have hoped hi s bel at ed f ul l di scl osur e woul d pr ot ect hi m f r om

pr osecut i on f or f r aud and unl awf ul conceal ment , " t he gover nment " - -

whet her i n t he per sona of t he bankrupt cy t r ust ee or t he Uni t ed

St at es At t orney - - made no such commi t ment . Cf . Uni t ed St at es v.

Penn. I ndus. Chem. Corp. , 411 U. S. 655, 674 ( 1973) ( hol di ng t hat

cr i mi nal pr osecut i on may be bar r ed i f government mi sl ed def endant

on whet her char ged conduct was cr i mi nal ) .

The sol e set t l ement case on whi ch Edgardo r el i es, Hoseman

v. Wei nschnei der , 322 F. 3d 468 ( 7t h Ci r . 2003) , i s i napposi t e.

There, a t r ust ee' s decl ar at or y j udgment act i on was f i l ed i n

bankrupt cy cour t agai nst a debt or who had f ai l ed t o di scl ose hi s

i nt er est i n a busi ness dur i ng negot i at i ons t o set t l e an adver sar y

pr oceedi ng. I d. at 471. The Sevent h Ci r cui t rul ed t hat t he

t r ust ee must adhere t o t he t erms of a rel ease and covenant not t o

-15-


16/42

sue t hat had been execut ed as par t of t he set t l ement , r ej ect i ng t he

t r ust ee' s post - set t l ement at t empt t o secur e t he busi ness i nt er est

f or t he debt or ' s bankrupt cy est at e. I d. at 473- 74.

The cour t ' s enf or cement of t he set t l ement i n Hoseman i s

not hi ng l i ke Edgar do' s pr oposed bar of a cr i mi nal pr osecut i on based

on hi s bankr upt cy set t l ement . Not onl y di d t he agr eement i n

Hoseman cover "al l cl ai ms, known or unknown" and expr essl y pr ot ect

t he debt or f r om "any sui t or acti on, at l aw or i n equi t y, " i d. at

473 ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) - - t he ver y t ype of

pr oceedi ng l at er f i l ed by the t r ust ee - - but i t was t he t r ust ee who

bot h si gned t he agr eement and sought t o escape f r om i t s

l i mi t at i ons. I n addi t i on, bot h t he set t l ement and t he cour t act i on

i n Hoseman were par t of t he bankr upt cy pr oceedi ngs. Here, by

cont r ast , t he set t l ement agr eement di d not pr omi se Edgardo i mmuni t y

f r om pr osecut i on i n exchange f or hi s surr ender of Ml aga #1, and

t wo di f f erent ar ms of t he f eder al gover nment ar e i mpl i cat ed.

Fi nal l y, t o t he ext ent Edgar do' s br i ef i ng can be

const r ued t o r ai se t he doct r i ne of col l at er al est oppel , t hat ef f or t

t oo i s unavai l i ng. 12 The bankrupt cy cour t i ssued no r ul i ng on t he

l egal i t y of Edgar do' s conduct t hat coul d possi bl y i mpl i cat e

col l at er al est oppel , whi ch bar s r el i t i gat i on of pr evi ousl y deci ded

i ssues t hat wer e "essent i al t o t he [ ear l i er ] j udgment , " R os-

12 The di st r i ct cour t expr essl y r ej ect ed col l at er al est oppelbased on t he set t l ement agr eement as a bar t o t he cr i mi nalpr osecut i on. See Dkt . 302 ( Or der of Feb. 6, 2012) .

-16-


17/42

Pi ei r o v. Uni t ed St at es, 713 F. 3d 688, 692 ( 1st Ci r . 2013) . See,

e. g. , Uni t ed St at es v. Tat um, 943 F. 2d 370, 382 ( 4t h Ci r . 1991)

( r ej ecti ng appl i cat i on of col l at er al est oppel i n a cri mi nal case

based on bankrupt cy di scharge wher e "[ t ] he onl y adj udi cat i on

necessar y t o t he di schar ge . . . was appr oval of t he set t l ement

agr eement as an accept abl e compr omi se i n the i nt erest s of t he

est at e and i t s credi t or s") ; cf . Uni t ed St at es v. Modanl o, 493 B. R.

469, 475 (D. Md. 2013) ( not i ng par t i es' acknowl edgment t hat

"col l at er al est oppel may bar t he Gover nment f r om l i t i gat i ng, i n a

cri mi nal case, an i ssue pr evi ousl y l i t i gat ed and deci ded i n a ci vi l

bankr upt cy pr oceedi ng" ) . 13 The bankr upt cy j udge di d not addr ess t he

cr i mi nal i t y of Edgardo' s conduct , and whether Edgardo commi t t ed

cr i mes was not "essent i al " t o t he deci si on appr ovi ng t he Par t i al

Set t l ement Agr eement .

I n sum, Edgar do' s set t l ement of t he adver sary pr oceedi ng

pr ovi ded no basi s f or a j udgment of acqui t t al on t he cr i mi nal

char ges subsequent l y f i l ed agai nst hi m.

III. Edgardo and Astrid: Sufficiency of the Evidence

Both appel l ant s argue t hat t he evi dence adduced by t he

gover nment was i nsuf f i ci ent t o suppor t t hei r conspi r acy convi ct i ons

13 As not ed above, i n a separ at e deci si on i n a rel at edpr oceedi ng, t he j udge i n Modanl o rej ect ed t he def endant ' scont ent i on t hat t he gover nment was col l at eral l y est opped f r omcr i mi nal l y pr osecut i ng hi mon t he gr ound t hat t he U. S. At t or ney andt he U. S. Tr ust ee wer e nei t her t he same par t y nor i n pr i vi t y wi t heach ot her . See 954 F. Supp. at 388.

-17-


18/42

under Count One and t he f r audul ent t r ansf er convi ct i ons under

Count s Thr ee t hr ough Fi ve based on I U' s acqui si t i on i n 2006 of

Laguna Gardens V PHP, El Convent o and Antonsant i . Edgar do

addi t i onal l y chal l enges t he adequacy of t he r ecor d t o suppor t hi s

convi ct i on f or money l aunder i ng.

We appl y de novo r evi ew t o evi dent i ar y suf f i ci ency

cl ai ms, exami ni ng whet her "' a r at i onal f act f i nder coul d f i nd,

beyond a reasonabl e doubt , t hat t he pr osecut i on successf ul l y pr oved

t he essent i al el ement s of t he cr i me. ' " Uni t ed St at es v. Di Rosa,

761 F. 3d 144, 150 ( 1st Ci r . 2014) ( quot i ng Uni t ed St at es v. Hat ch,

434 F. 3d 1, 4 ( 1st Ci r . 2006) ) . We r evi ew t he evi dence, and al l

r easonabl e i nf er ences dr awn f r omi t , i n t he l i ght most f avor abl e t o

t he government . I d.

A. The Conspiracy Count

Bot h appel l ant s cl ai mt hat t he evi dence pr esent ed by t he

gover nment at t r i al f el l shor t of est abl i shi ng a conspi r acy bet ween

t hem t o conceal and f r audul ent l y t r ansf er Edgar do' s asset s i n

vi ol at i on of t he bankrupt cy l aws. See 18 U. S. C. 152( 1) , ( 7) . 14

Ast r i d at t empt s t o di st ance her sel f f r om Edgar do' s conduct ,

14 Sect i on 152( 1) i mposes cr i mi nal l i abi l i t y on any per son

i nvol ved i n a bankr upt cy case who "knowi ngl y and f r audul ent l yconceal s . . . f r om credi t or s or t he Uni t ed St at es Tr ust ee, anypr oper t y bel ongi ng t o t he est at e of a debt or . " Sect i on 152( 7)i mposes cr i mi nal l i abi l i t y on any per son who " i n cont empl at i on ofa case under t i t l e 11 [ t he Bankrupt cy Code] . . . or wi t h i nt ent t odef eat t he pr ovi si ons of t i t l e 11, knowi ngl y and f r audul ent l yt r ansf er s or conceal s any of hi s pr oper t y. "

-18-


19/42

cl ai mi ng t hat she had not hi ng t o do wi t h hi s act i ons bef or e t he

t r ansf er of t he Ml aga #1 pr opert y t o I U and, hence, no conspi r acy

coul d have been i n pl ace at t he t i me of t hat t r ansact i on. She al so

mi ni mi zes t he si gni f i cance of her r ol e as pr esi dent of I U, poi nt i ng

t o evi dence t hat ot her i ndi vi dual s who hel d t hat posi t i on wer e

uni nvol ved i n t he busi ness and ci t i ng Edgar do' s admi ssi on t hat I U

was hi s al t er ego. For hi s par t , Edgar do compl ai ns t hat t he

government r el i ed on i mpr oper hear say evi dence, and he assert s t hat

t he j ur y necessar i l y dr ew i mper mi ssi bl e i nf er ences f r omappel l ant s'

br ot her - si ster r el at i onshi p.

We f i nd none of appel l ant s' argument s persuasi ve. To

sust ai n a conspi r acy convi ct i on, t he government must show t hat t he

def endant knowi ngl y agr eed wi t h at l east one ot her person t o commi t

a cr i me, i nt endi ng t hat t he under l yi ng of f ense be compl et ed. See

Uni t ed St at es v. Rodr guez- Ador no, 695 F. 3d 32, 41 ( 1st Ci r . 2012) ;

Uni t ed St at es v. Gar c a- Past r ana, 584 F. 3d 351, 377 ( 1st Ci r .

2009) . The i ndi ct ment char ges a conspi r acy t hat ext ended f r om

about August 17, 2002 - - t he date Ml aga #1 was t r ansf err ed f r om

Edgar do t o I U - - t hr ough mi d- J anuar y 2007 - - f ol l owi ng t he Thr ee

Ki ngs Day sal e of Ml aga #1, and af t er Ast r i d wi t hdr ew f r om t he

bankrupt cy case and r el i nqui shed t he pr esi dency of I U. The r ecor d

shows cont i nuous col l abor at i on by t he si bl i ngs t hr oughout t hat

per i od. Bot h wer e i nvol ved i n t he 2002 t r ansf er : Edgar do was t he

sel l er and, i n ef f ect , t he buyer as wel l , and Ast r i d dr af t ed t he

-19-


20/42

deed and f or mal l y r epr esent ed I U i n t he t r ansact i on as i t s

pr esi dent . When Edgardo f i l ed f or bankr upt cy about t en mont hs

l at er wi t hout di scl osi ng t he sal e of Ml aga #1 or hi s owner shi p

i nt er est i n I U, Ast r i d si gned t he bankr upt cy pet i t i on as hi s

at t orney. Both at t ended t he cr edi t ors' meet i ng i n November 2003,

when Edgardo f al sel y st at ed t hat I U was owned by Chi cago i nvest ors.

At t hat t i me, Ast r i d was st i l l act i ng as I U' s pr esi dent ( as wel l as

Edgardo' s at t orney) . Both al so si gned t he amended bankr upt cy

schedul es t hat cont i nued t o omi t Ml aga #1, and Ast r i d acted as

I U' s pr esi dent i n t he mul t i pl e r eal est at e deal s t hat Edgar do

i ni t i at ed f or I U i n 2006. Lat er i n 2006, Ast r i d si gned f i ve year s'

wor t h of I U' s l at e annual r epor t s.

Thi s evi dence of t he si bl i ngs' act i vi t i es i s suf f i ci ent

t o per mi t a r easonabl e j ur y to concl ude t hat t he pai r wor ked

j oi nt l y t hroughout t he per i od char ged i n t he i ndi ct ment t o

unl awf ul l y conceal and t r ansf er pr oper t y bel ongi ng to Edgar do' s

bankrupt cy est at e. Appel l ant s at t empt t o di scount t he i mpor t of

t hei r obvi ous col l abor at i on by cl ai mi ng a l ack of pr oof t hat t hei r

act i ons were t aken pur suant t o a conspi r at or i al agr eement . The

government , however , need not pr oduce "evi dence of an expl i ci t

agr eement t o gr ound a conspi r acy convi ct i on. " Uni t ed St at es v.

Pesat ur o, 476 F. 3d 60, 72 ( 1st Ci r . 2007) . Rat her , " [ a]n agr eement

t o j oi n a conspi r acy ' may be expr ess or t aci t . . . and may be

pr oved by di r ect or ci r cumst ant i al evi dence. ' " Uni t ed St at es v.

-20-


21/42

Li r i ano, 761 F. 3d 131, 135 ( 1st Ci r . 2014) ( omi ssi on i n or i gi nal )

( quot i ng Uni t ed St at es v. Ri ver a Cal der n, 578 F. 3d 78, 88 ( 1st

Ci r . 2009) ) .

Based on t he evi dence descr i bed above, a j ur y r easonabl y

coul d i nf er t hat t he si bl i ngs had agr eed t o mi sl ead t he bankrupt cy

cour t about Edgar do' s asset s, i ncl udi ng hi s owner shi p of I U, and

t ook numer ous st eps desi gned t o pr ot ect hi s r esour ces, begi nni ng

wi t h t he t r ansf er of Ml aga #1 i n ant i ci pat i on of t he bankrupt cy

f i l i n g . 15 See Rodr guez- Adorno, 695 F. 3d at 41- 42 ( not i ng t hat

f i ndi ngs of knowl edge and i nt ent may r est on i nf erences dr awn f r om

t he def endant ' s commi ssi on of act s f ur t her i ng t he conspi r acy' s

pur poses) . Accor di ngl y, " t her e i s no quest i on t hat t he gover nment

pr esent ed suf f i ci ent evi dence t o suppor t appel l ant [ s' ]

convi cti ons. " I d. at 43. 16

B. The Property Purchases in 2006

Bot h appel l ant s cl ai mt hat j udgment s of acqui t t al shoul d

have been ent ered on t he t hr ee count s char gi ng t hem wi t h t he

f r audul ent t r ansf ers of Laguna Gardens V PHP (Count Thr ee) , El

Convent o ( Count Four ) , and Ant onsant i ( Count Fi ve) , i n vi ol at i on of

15 Hence, cont r ar y to Ast r i d' s asser t i ons, t he j ur y coul d

pr oper l y f i nd t hat t he t r ansf er of Ml aga #1 was an over t act - -i ndeed, t he f i r st of many - - i n f ur t her ance of t he conspi r acy.

16 Edgardo f ai l s t o devel op hi s argument t hat t he governmentr el i ed on i nadmi ssi bl e hear say evi dence t o suppor t hi s convi ct i on,and we t heref ore deemi t wai ved. See Uni t ed St ates v. Zanni no, 895F. 2d 1, 17 ( 1st Ci r . 1990) .

-21-


22/42

18 U. S. C. 152( 7) . Sect i on 152( 7) pr ovi des, i n r el evant par t ,

t hat i t i s unl awf ul f or a per son, "wi t h i nt ent t o def eat t he

pr ovi si ons of [ t he Bankrupt cy Code] , knowi ngl y and f r audul ent l y

[ t o] t r ansf er [ ] or conceal [ ] any of hi s pr oper t y. " Appel l ant s

ar gue that t he gover nment f ai l ed t o pr ove t hat t he pr oper t i es wer e

pur chased wi t h f unds bel ongi ng t o t he bankr upt cy est ate and, hence,

t he j ur y coul d not pr oper l y f i nd t hat t hey act ed wi t h t he i nt ent t o

def eat t he pr ovi si ons of t he Bankrupt cy Code. Al t hough t he

gover nment acknowl edges t hat , " [ d] ue t o Appel l ant s' act i ons, " t he

bankrupt cy t r ust ee coul d not excl ude the possi bi l i t y t hat t he

pr oper t i es wer e pur chased wi t h post - pet i t i on ear ni ngs, 17 i t asser t s

t hat 152( 7) does not demand t hat t he f r audul ent t r ansf er s at

i ssue i nvol ve pr oper t y of t he bankrupt cy est at e.

We agr ee wi t h t he government , whose posi t i on i s suppor t ed

by t he pl ai n l anguage of t he st at ut e. Unl i ke 152( 1) , whi ch

addr esses t he conceal ment of "any pr opert y bel ongi ng t o t he est ate

of a debt or , " 18 U. S. C. 152( 1) ( emphasi s added) , 152( 7) cover s

t he t r ansf er or conceal ment of "any of [ a debt or ' s] pr oper t y or t he

pr oper t y of [ any] ot her per son or cor por at i on, " i d.

152( 7) ( emphasi s added) ; see al so Uni t ed St ates v. Moody, 923 F. 2d

341, 346- 47 ( 5t h Ci r . 1991) ( not i ng t he di f f er ent l anguage) .

Hence, al t hough the t r ansf er or conceal ment pr ohi bi t ed by 152( 7)

17 Ear ni ngs " f r om ser vi ces per f or med by an i ndi vi dual debt oraf t er t he commencement of t he [bankr upt cy] case" ar e not pr oper t yof t he est at e. 11 U. S. C. 541( a) ( 6) .

-22-


23/42

must r el at e t o a bankrupt cy case - - i . e. , i t must be i nt ended t o

def eat t he pr ovi si ons of t he Bankrupt cy Code - - t he st at ut e r eaches

beyond t he bankrupt cy est at e i t sel f . See Uni t ed St at es v. Messner ,

107 F. 3d 1448, 1452 ( 10t h Ci r . 1997) ( f i ndi ng t hat "cul pabi l i t y

wi l l at t ach t o a conceal ment of a per son' s own pr opert y i f done f or

t he pur pose of def eat i ng bankrupt cy") ; Uni t ed St at es v. West , 22

F. 3d 586, 590 ( 5t h Ci r . 1994) ( hol di ng t hat t r ansf er of pr oper t y

out si de t he bankrupt cy est at e may pr ovi de basi s f or vi ol at i on so

l ong as i t was "made knowi ngl y, f r audul ent l y, and i n cont empl at i on

of a case under t i t l e 11 or wi t h i nt ent t o def eat t he pr ovi si ons of

t i t l e 11") ; Moody, 923 F. 2d at 347 ( hol di ng t hat "i t i s not

necessar y f or t he pr oper t y t o be an asset of t he bankrupt cy est at e"

so l ong as t he def endant "has t he i nt ent at t he t i me of t he

conceal ment or t r ansf er t o def eat t he bankrupt cy l aw" ( i nt er nal

quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) ) ; see al so 1 Col l i er on Bankrupt cy

7. 02[ 7] [ a] [ v] ( 16t h ed. 2014) ( not i ng t hat 152( 7) "cover s t he

debt or ' s post pet i t i on t r ansf er s or conceal ment s, i f t aken wi t h t he

r equi si t e ment al st at e, due t o t he l evel of i nt er f er ence wi t h t he

admi ni st r at i on of t he debt or ' s bankrupt cy est at e t hat mi ght ar i se

f r om unr egul at ed t r ansf er s") .

The f act s here i l l ust r at e why t he f r aud provi si ons of t he

Bankrupt cy Code r each post - pet i t i on ear ni ngs. The j ur y r easonabl y

coul d have f ound t hat Edgar do used post - pet i t i on ear ni ngs t o f und

I U' s account - - a bankrupt cy est at e asset t hat shoul d have been

-23-


24/42

di scl osed i ni t i al l y - - and t hen used t hat I U account t o acqui r e t he

t hr ee pr oper t i es. I t i s i nconcei vabl e t hat such a bl at ant scheme

t o mani pul at e an est at e asset coul d be i nsul at ed f r om cr i mi nal

consequences si mpl y because t he f unds at i ssue der i ved f r om post -

pet i t i on ear ni ngs. I ndeed, because I U shoul d have been i ncl uded i n

t he bankrupt cy est at e, appel l ant s pr esumabl y wer e obl i ged t o br i ng

t o the t r ust ee' s at t ent i on any f unds movi ng t hr ough t he company.

See 11 U. S. C. 541( a) ( 7) ( st at i ng t hat pr oper t y of t he est at e

i ncl udes " [ a] ny i nt er est i n pr oper t y t hat t he est at e acqui r es af t er

t he commencement of t he case" ) .

Ul t i mat el y, however , appel l ant s' chal l enge t o t hei r

convi ct i ons under Count s Thr ee t hrough Fi ve does not depend on t he

sour ce of t he f unds used t o pur chase t he t hr ee pr oper t i es.

Regar dl ess of how t he acqui si t i ons wer e f i nanced, t he j ur y coul d

have f ound t hat t he t r ansact i ons wer e del i ber at el y st r uct ur ed t o

conceal asset s f r om t he t r ust ee and, hence, were done "wi t h i nt ent

t o def eat t he pr ovi si ons of [ t he Bankrupt cy Code] . " 18 U. S. C.

152( 7) . Appel l ant s wer e t her ef or e not ent i t l ed t o j udgment s of

acqui t t al on Count s Thr ee t hr ough Fi ve.

C. Money Laundering

Count Seven of t he i ndi ct ment char ged Edgardo wi t h money

l aunder i ng, i n vi ol at i on of 18 U. S. C. 1956( a) ( 1) ( B) ( i ) , 18al l egi ng

18 To pr ove a vi ol at i on of 1956( a) ( 1) ( B) ( i ) , t he gover nmentmust est abl i sh:

-24-


25/42

t hat he knowi ngl y t r ansf or med the pr oceeds of a pr oper t y t r ansf er

t hat was unl awf ul under bankr upt cy l aw, see 18 U. S. C. 152( 7) ,

wi t h t he i nt ent i on "t o conceal and di sgui se[ ] t he nat ur e, l ocat i on,

sour ce, owner shi p, and cont r ol " of t he f unds. Edgar do cur sor i l y

asser t s t hat t he government ' s evi dence f ai l ed t o show t wo necessary

el ement s of t he money l aunder i ng char ge: t hat t he money at i ssue

was der i ved f r om unl awf ul act i vi t y and t hat he i nt ended t o

unl awf ul l y use or conceal t he money. 19

Thi s cl ai m war r ant s l i t t l e di scussi on. The government

sought t o show t hat Edgar do commi t t ed money l aunder i ng when he

conver t ed t he pr oceeds of t he Ml aga #1 "sal e" i n J anuary 2007 i nt o

ei ght manager ' s checks payabl e t o f our of hi s r el at i ves. 20 By t hat

t i me, t he t r ust ee' s i nvest i gat i on i nt o t he owner shi p of Ml aga #1

( 1) t hat [ t he def endant ] knowi ngl y conduct ed a f i nanci alt r ansact i on, ( 2) t hat he knew t hat t he t r ansact i on

i nvol ved f unds t hat wer e pr oceeds of some f or m ofunl awf ul act i vi t y, ( 3) t hat t he f unds wer e pr oceeds of aspeci f i ed unl awf ul act i vi t y, and ( 4) t hat [ t he def endant ]engaged i n t he f i nanci al t r ansact i on knowi ng t hat i t wasdesi gned i n whol e or i n par t t o conceal or di sgui se thenat ur e, l ocat i on, sour ce, owner shi p, or cont r ol of t hepr oceeds of such unl awf ul act i vi t y.

Uni t ed St at es v. Hal l , 434 F. 3d 42, 50 ( 1st Ci r . 2006) .

19 Edgardo makes a f l eet i ng r ef erence to t he i nadequacy of t hegover nment ' s pr oof t hat t he char ged f i nanci al t r ansact i ons af f ect ed

i nt er st at e commer ce, see 18 U. S. C. 1956( c) ( 4) , but he f ai l s t omake a meani ngf ul chal l enge t o t he suf f i ci ency of t he evi dence ont hat el ement . We t her ef or e do not consi der t he i ssue.

20 As not ed above, t he government pr esent ed evi dence t hat t hef unds event ual l y wer e ret ur ned t o t he account s of t he pur port edbuyer s, t he par ent s of Edgar do' s gi r l f r i end.

-25-


26/42

was underway and t he adver sar y pr oceedi ng had been f i l ed. The

ci r cumst ances of t he cl osi ng i t sel f bespoke a suspi ci ous

f oundat i on: t he unusual schedul i ng on Thr ee Ki ngs Day t o f i nal i ze

t he sal e, i ndi cat i ng ur gency t o get t he deal done, wi t hEdgardo' s

cousi n/ housekeeper ser vi ng as I U' s pr esi dent f ol l owi ng Ast r i d' s

r esi gnat i on. Not at i ons on t he ei ght I U checks t hat f unded t he

manager ' s checks suggest ed t hat t he f our payees were connect ed t o

t he company, but each deni ed any such r el at i onshi p or r ecei vi ng t he

f unds. Thi s evi dence, t aken i n t he l i ght most f avor abl e t o t he

gover nment , suppor t s a f i ndi ng t hat Edgar do i ni t i at ed t he shamsal e

of Ml aga #1, and ar r anged t he convol ut ed handl i ng of t he pr oceeds,

t o f ur t her hi s ear l i er f r audul ent t r ansf er and conceal ment of t he

property. 21

The evi dence was t hus suf f i ci ent f or t he j ur y t o f i nd

Edgardo gui l t y of unl awf ul money l aunder i ng.

IV. Astrid: Rule 404(b) Evidence

Ast r i d cl ai ms t hat t he di st r i ct cour t er r ed i n al l owi ng

t he j ur y t o hear evi dence t hat she had f ai l ed t o di scl ose t hat she

owned t he apart ment i n whi ch she l i ved when she f i l ed f or personal

bankr upt cy i n 2000. The government mai nt ai ns t hat t hi s evi dence

21The gover nment suggest s t hat Edgar do may have st r uct ured t het r ansact i on i n t hi s way to pr ovi de t he appear ance t hat I U hadout si de i nvest or s, consi st ent wi t h hi s f al se t est i mony at t hecr edi t or s' meet i ng i n November 2003. A r easonabl e j ur y al so coul dhave concl uded t hat Edgardo was seeki ng t o hi de t hat t he sal e wasa sham by usi ng of f i ci al checks t o "pay" supposedl y I U- r el at edi ndi vi dual s f or ser vi ces per f or med.

-26-


27/42

was admi ss i bl e t o show t he def endant ' s knowl edge and i nt ent wi t h

r espect t o t he conduct al l eged i n the i ndi ct ment , and ther eby t o

r ebut any suggest i on t hat her i nvol vement i n the charged cr i mes was

t he pr oduct of negl ect , mi st ake or acci dent .

Under Federal Rul e of Evi dence 404( b) , evi dence of pr i or

bad act s " i s not admi ssi bl e t o pr ove a per son' s char act er i n or der

t o show t hat on a par t i cul ar occasi on t he per son act ed i n

accor dance wi t h t he char act er , " Fed. R. Evi d. 404( b) ( 1) , but such

evi dence may be i nt r oduced i f i t has " speci al r el evance" and i s not

unf ai r l y pr ej udi ci al , Di Rosa, 761 F. 3d at 153; Fed. R. Evi d. 403. 22

We have expl ai ned t hat "speci al r el evance" means t he evi dence "i s

r el evant f or any pur pose apar t f r om showi ng pr opensi t y t o commi t a

cr i me. " Uni t ed St at es v. Doe, 741 F. 3d 217, 229 ( 1st Ci r . 2013) .

Among t he permi t t ed uses of pr i or act s evi dence i s t o pr ove a

def endant ' s i nt ent or knowl edge. Fed. R. Evi d. 404( b) ( 2) ; Di Rosa,

761 F. 3d at 152. Even speci al l y r el evant evi dence shoul d be

excl uded, however , i f t her e i s " danger t hat i t [ woul d] sway[ ] t he

j ury t owar d a convi ct i on on an emot i onal basi s" or woul d pose an

undue r i sk of "an i mpr oper cr i mi nal pr opensi t y i nf er ence. " Uni t ed

St at es v. Var oudaki s, 233 F. 3d 113, 122 ( 1st Ci r . 2000) .

To r evi ew t he admi ssi on of pr i or bad act s evi dence we

or di nar i l y f ol l ow a t wo- st ep i nqui r y. We f i r st det er mi ne whet her

22 Feder al Rul e of Evi dence 403 pr ovi des, i nt er al i a, t hat acour t "may excl ude r el evant evi dence i f i t s pr obat i ve val ue i ssubst ant i al l y out wei ghed by a danger of . . . unf ai r pr ej udi ce. "

-27-


28/42

t he di sput ed evi dence i s speci al l y r el evant under Rul e 404( b) and,

i f so, we consi der whether t he evi dence shoul d nonethel ess be

excl uded, pur suant t o Rul e 403, because of t he r i sk of unf ai r

pr ej udi ce. Di Rosa, 761 F. 3d at 153. We r evi ew t he di st r i ct

cour t ' s r ul i ngs on t hi s i nqui r y f or abuse of di scr et i on. Uni t ed

St at es v. Appol on, 715 F. 3d 362, 373 ( 1st Ci r . 2013) .

Ast r i d ar gues t hat t he gover nment may not j ust i f y

admi ssi on of t he chal l enged evi dence based on i t s need t o pr ove her

st ate of mi nd because she advi sed t he cour t t hat she woul d not r el y

on any def ense r el at ed t o unf ami l i ar i t y wi t h bankrupt cy l aw. She

f ur t her asser t s t hat t he evi dence was subst ant i al l y mor e

pr ej udi ci al t han pr obat i ve.

Al t hough Ast r i d pr edi ct abl y di scl ai med r el i ance on

i gnorance of t he Bankr upt cy Code as a def ense - - gi ven her

exper i ence as a bankr upt cy at t or ney - - t hat di scl ai mer does not

account f or a possi bl e def ense t hat she was an unknowi ng

col l abor ator i n her br ot her ' s scheme t o def r aud t he bankrupt cy

cour t . See, e. g. , Uni t ed St at es v. Landr y, 631 F. 3d 597, 602 ( 1st

Ci r . 2011) ( f i ndi ng pr i or act s r el evant t o show i nt ent or knowl edge

"because t he evi dence rebut s an i nnocent i nvol vement def ense") .

I ndeed, her br i ef i ng on appeal suggest s such a st r at egy. She

emphasi zes her l i mi t ed r ol e i n, and knowl edge of , I U' s busi ness,

poi nt s t o Edgar do' s admi ssi on t hat I U was hi s al t er ego, and not es

-28-


29/42

t hat her r esponse t o t he compl ai nt i n t he adver sary pr oceedi ng

r epor t ed r el i ance on i nf or mat i on pr ovi ded by t he debt or .

We have obser ved t hat " [ e] vi dence of unchar ged f r aud

act i vi t y t hat i s substant i al l y s i mi l ar t o t he act i vi t y under l yi ng

a charged f r aud scheme of t en i s admi t t ed t o show knowl edge or

i nt ent t o def r aud wi t h r espect t o t he char ged f r aud scheme. "

Uni t ed St at es v. Sebaggal a, 256 F. 3d 59, 68 ( 1st Ci r . 2001) . Her e,

t he di st r i ct cour t suppor t abl y concl uded t hat t he di sput ed evi dence

"r el at i ng t o [ Ast r i d' s] own bankr upt cy i s subst ant i al l y si mi l ar t o

t he char ged conceal ment of asset s i n t he i nst ant case. " Or der

Adopt i ng Repor t and Recommendat i on, at 7 ( May 12, 2011)

( "Or der ") . Hence, we agr ee wi t h t he cour t ' s f i ndi ng t hat Ast r i d' s

deci si on not t o pur sue a def ense based on unf ami l i ar i t y wi t h t he

l aw "does not negat e t he pr obat i ve nat ur e of t he pr of f er ed evi dence

as t o [ her ] knowl edge, i nt ent and l ack of mi st ake or acci dent . "

I d. at 6. The evi dence t hus easi l y sur vi ves t he f i r st st ep of our

t wo- par t i nqui r y.

The second st ep, r equi r i ng us t o r evi ew t he cour t ' s

bal anci ng of pr obat i ve val ue agai nst t he r i sk of "unf ai r pr ej udi ce,

conf usi ng t he i ssues, [ or ] mi sl eadi ng t he j ur y, " Fed. R. Evi d. 403,

onl y r ar el y l eads t o r ever sal of t he di st r i ct cour t ' s "on- t he- spot

j udgment . " Doe, 741 F. 3d at 229 ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks

omi t t ed) . "[ T] he bal anci ng act cal l ed f or by Rul e 403 i s a

qui nt essent i al l y f act- sensi t i ve ent er pr i se, and t he t r i al j udge i s

-29-


30/42

i n t he best posi t i on t o make such f actbound assessment s. " Uni t ed

St at es v. Vi zcarr ondo- Casanova, 763 F. 3d 89, 94 ( 1st Ci r . 2014)

( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) .

Her e, t he di st r i ct cour t concl uded t hat t he "pr edomi nant

ef f ect " of t he chal l enged evi dence "woul d be t o demonst r at e

knowl edge or i nt ent , " and i t f ound "l i t t l e r i sk t hat t he pr of f er ed

evi dence woul d be l i kel y t o el i ci t a st r ong emot i onal r esponse f r om

j uror s and cause t hemt o act i r r at i onal l y based upon i t . " Or der at

7. The cour t f ur t her noted t hat t he evi dence "mi ght onl y

i nci dent al l y i ndi cat e a pr opensi t y t o commi t wr ongs, " and i t

obser ved t hat any pr ej udi ce st emmi ng f r om i nt r oduct i on of t he

evi dence "may be medi at ed wi t h a j ur y i nst r uct i on. " I d.

The cour t was cor r ect t o concl ude t hat t he evi dence of an

ear l i er bankrupt cy vi ol at i on woul d not engage the j ur or s' emot i ons

i n an unset t l i ng way. However , gi ven t he subst ant i al si mi l ar i t y

between Ast r i d' s pr i or conduct and t he charged conceal ment , t he

di st r i ct cour t may have under st at ed t he r i sk of a pr opensi t y

i nf er ence l i nki ng t he t wo bankrupt cy cases. Yet , we have

r ecogni zed t hat "al l pr i or bad act evi dence i nvol ves some pot ent i al

f or an i mpr oper pr opensi t y i nf er ence, " Var oudaki s, 233 F. 3d at 122,

and we f r equent l y have obser ved t hat , " [ b] y desi gn, al l evi dence i s

meant t o be pr ej udi ci al , " Di Rosa, 761 F. 3d at 153 ( al t er at i on i n

or i gi nal ) ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) . Admi ssi bi l i t y t hus

t ur ns not on whet her t he evi dence wi l l har m t he def endant , but on

-30-


31/42

whet her i t woul d pr ovoke "an undue tendency t o suggest deci si on on

an i mpr oper basi s. " Fed. R. Evi d. 403 advi sory commi t t ee' s not e

( emphasi s added) .

The evi dence i n t hi s case unmi st akabl y showed t hat Ast r i d

was a key pl ayer i n Edgardo' s bankr upt cy pr oceedi ngs and i n most of

t he al l egedl y f r audul ent t r ansact i ons char ged i n t he i ndi ct ment .

Hence, i n al l l i kel i hood, t he pi vot al quest i on f or t he j ur y i n

deci di ng Ast r i d' s gui l t was whet her she was an i nf or med and wi l l i ng

par t i ci pant i n Edgar do' s endeavor s. The evi dence of Ast r i d' s

conduct i n her own bankr upt cy was hi ghl y pr obat i ve on t hat

quest i on, r ei nf or ci ng t he ci r cumst ant i al evi dence of knowl edge t hat

coul d be i nf er r ed f r om her conduct . I n concl udi ng t hat t he

evi dence was pr oper l y admi ssi bl e, t he di st r i ct cour t di d not

negl ect t he pot ent i al f or unf ai r pr ej udi ce t o Ast r i d. I t t ook t he

r i sk i nt o account and was pr epar ed t o gi ve a l i mi t i ng i nst r uct i on

t o guar d agai nst t he possi bi l i t y of unf ai r pr ej udi ce. 23

I n t hese ci r cumst ances, we ar e sat i sf i ed t hat t he

di st r i ct cour t act ed wi t hi n i t s br oad di screti on when i t concl uded

t hat t he pr obat i ve val ue of t he chal l enged evi dence was not

"subst ant i al l y out wei ghed by a danger of . . . unf ai r pr ej udi ce. "

Fed. R. Evi d. 403.

23 Ast r i d' s counsel ul t i mat el y deci ded not t o r equest such ani nstr uct i on.

-31-


32/42

V. Edgardo and Astrid: The Guideline Loss Calculation

Bot h appel l ant s ar gue t hat t he di st r i ct cour t er r ed i n

f i ndi ng t hemr esponsi bl e f or l osses exceedi ng $1 mi l l i on and, based

on t hat f i gur e, i mposi ng a si xteen- l evel enhancement i n t hei r base

of f ense l evel s. See U. S. S. G. 2B1. 1( b) ( 1) ( I ) . Gui del i ne secti on

2B1. 1 pr ovi des f or var yi ng i ncr eases i n t he base of f ense l evel f or

cer t ai n cr i mes, i ncl udi ng f r aud, dependi ng on t he amount of l oss

caused by t he of f ense. See i d. ; Uni t ed St at es v. Appol on, 695 F. 3d

44, 66 ( 1st Ci r . 2012) . The appr opr i at e amount or di nar i l y i s "t he

gr eat er of act ual l oss or i nt ended l oss, " U. S. S. G. 2B1. 1 cmt .

n. 3( A) , and t he par t i es agr ee t hat i n t hi s i nst ance "i nt ended l oss"

i s t he appr opr i at e measur e. We have descr i bed " ' i nt ended l oss' i n

t hese ci r cumst ances [ a] s a t er m of ar t meani ng t he l oss t he

def endant r easonabl y expected t o occur at t he t i me he perpet r ated

t he f r aud. " Uni t ed St at es v. I nnar el l i , 524 F. 3d 286, 290 ( 1st

Ci r . 2008) ; see al so Appol on, 695 F. 3d at 67.

I n cal cul at i ng t he i nt ended l oss, t he di st r i ct cour t

combi ned t he $1. 4 mi l l i on sal e pr i ce of Ml aga #1 i n 2008 - - mi nus

i t s out st andi ng mor t gage ( r oughl y $750, 000) - - wi t h the

appr oxi mat el y $750, 000 i n cash payment s f or t he thr ee pr opert i es

Edgar do pur chased t hrough I U i n 2006 ( Laguna Gardens V PHP, El

Convent o, and Ant onsant i ) . The sum, $1. 4 mi l l i on, f el l wi t hi n t he

gui del i nes range f or a si xt een- l evel enhancement ( more t han $1

mi l l i on, but l ess t han $2. 5 mi l l i on) . We r evi ew de novo t he met hod

-32-


33/42

chosen by the cour t t o cal cul at e l oss, but we r evi ew onl y f or cl ear

er r or " [ t ] he mat hemat i cal appl i cat i on of t hi s met hodol ogy. "

Appol on, 695 F. 3d at 66.

Ast r i d' s onl y ar gument , unsuppor t ed by any ci t at i ons t o

aut hor i t y, i s t hat she cannot be hel d r esponsi bl e f or t he amount s

i nvol ved i n t he pr oper t y t r ansf er s because she nei t her r ecei ved nor

i nt ended t o recei ve any pecuni ar y gai n f r om t hose t r ansact i ons.

She rel i es sol el y on cases i n whi ch t he enhancement was appl i ed t o

def endant s who di d i n f act r eal i ze some economi c benef i t , but t hose

cases do not est abl i sh t hat a benef i t i s a r equi r ed condi t i on f or

t he enhancement . I ndeed, t he gui del i nes pr ovi si on al so appl i es t o

cr i mes i nvol vi ng pr oper t y damage or dest r uct i on, see U. S. S. G.

2B1. 1, wher e t he def endant pr esumabl y woul d not benef i t at al l .

Mor eover , an appl i cat i on not e t o the gui del i ne di r ect s t he cour t t o

"use t he gai n t hat r esul t ed f r om t he of f ense as an al t er nat i ve

measur e of l oss onl y i f t her e i s a l oss but i t r easonabl y cannot be

det er mi ned. " I d. 2B1. 1 cmt . n. 3( B) . Hence, t her e i s no

r equi r ement of personal gai n as a condi t i on of an enhancement under

2B1. 1( b) ( 1) .

Edgar do ar gues t hat t he di st r i ct cour t used t he wr ong

val ue f or Ml aga #1, and he cl ai ms t he cor r ect amount of l oss f or

t hat pr opert y was t he appr oxi matel y $175, 000 equi t y he hel d at t he

t i me he sought bankrupt cy pr ot ect i on i n 2003. I n addi t i on, he

assert s t hat t he cost of t he t hr ee pr oper t i es acqui r ed i n 2006

-33-


34/42

shoul d not be par t of t he l oss cal cul at i on, ef f ecti vel y r ei t er at i ng

hi s cont ent i on t hat t hose pur chases ar e i r r el evant t o t hi s case

because t hey were f unded wi t h post - pet i t i on r esour ces. Based on

hi s pr ef er r ed cal cul at i on - - i . e. , a t ot al of $175, 000 - - t he l oss

f i gur e woul d t r i gger a t en- l evel i ncrease i n t he base of f ense

l evel . See U. S. S. G. 2B1. 1( b) ( 1) ( F) ( mor e t han $120, 000, but l ess

t han $200, 000) .

We can r ej ect summar i l y Edgardo' s asser t i on t hat t he 2006

pur chases shoul d be excl uded f r om t he l oss cal cul at i on, havi ng

al r eady r ej ect ed Edgar do' s at t empt t o i nsul at e t hose pur chases f r om

cr i mi nal consequences based on hi s cl ai m t hat t hey were pur chased

wi t h post - pet i t i on ear ni ngs. As we have f ound t hat conceal i ng t he

pur chase of t he t hr ee pr opert i es was pr oper l y charged as bankr upt cy

f r aud, i t necessar i l y f ol l ows t hat t he pur chase pr i ces may pr oper l y

be t al l i ed f or sent enci ng.

We al so f i nd no er r or i n ei t her t he di st r i ct cour t ' s

deci si on t o set t he l oss amount as t he combi ned val ues of t he

conceal ed pr oper t i es or i t s sel ect i on of t he speci f i c amount

at t r i but abl e t o Ml aga #1. The appr oach i t sel f , f ocusi ng on t he

pr oper t i es hi dden f r omt he bankrupt cy est at e, i s a sensi bl e way t o

appr ai se the har m at t r i but abl e t o Edgar do' s unl awf ul conceal ment .

Ml aga #1 shoul d have been i n t he bankr upt cy est ate f r om t he

out set , wi t h i t s val ue avai l abl e t o pay credi t or s, and t he use of

I U t o acqui r e t he ot her pr oper t i es pr ovi des a basi s f or al so

-34-


35/42

t r eat i ng t hei r val ues as amount s Edgardo i nt ended t o deny

credi t or s. I n set t l i ng on t he $1. 4 mi l l i on sal e pr i ce f or Ml aga

#1 ( l ess t he mor t gage) , t he cour t chose t he mi ddl e of t hr ee

possi bl e val uat i ons; i n addi t i on t o Edgar do' s proposed $175, 000,

t he cour t not ed t hat Edgar do had l i st ed t he pr oper t y at $1. 8

mi l l i on i n t he amended schedul es he f i l ed pur suant t o t he

set t l ement agreement . The cour t ' s choi ce was bot h pr agmat i c and

f ai r . The pr i ce at whi ch t he t r ust ee sol d t he pr oper t y pr ovi ded

obj ect i ve evi dence of val ue, and t he cour t r easonabl y coul d pr esume

t hat , when Edgardo conceal ed t he pr oper t y i n 2003, he expect ed t he

oceanf r ont pr oper t y t o appr eci at e i n val ue. See gener al l y Appol on,

695 F. 3d at 68- 69 ( not i ng t hat di st r i ct cour t , i n cal cul at i ng l oss,

coul d pr oper l y rel y ondef endant s' ant i ci pat i on of changi ng r eal

est at e pr i ces) . Ther e was no cl ear er r or i n t he cour t ' s j udgment .

VI. Edgardo: Money Laundering Sentence

The di st r i ct cour t sent enced Edgardo t o a si xt y- mont h

t erm of i mpr i sonment on Count s One t hr ough Si x - - t he conceal ment

charges - - and t o a concur r ent sevent y- t wo mont h t ermf or t he Count

Seven money l aunder i ng of f ense r el ated t o t he sham sal e of Ml aga

#1. Edgardo argues t hat t he cour t i mpr oper l y sent enced hi m on t he

money l aunder i ng count t o a t er m beyond t he f i ve- year st at ut or y

maxi mum appl i cabl e t o t he under l yi ng conceal ment of f enses. He

cl ai ms t he cour t shoul d have t r eat ed t he money l aunder i ng as par t

of t he conceal ment and, hence, not subj ect t o gr eat er puni shment .

-35-


36/42

We see no basi s f or over t ur ni ng t he sent ence i mposed on

Count Seven. Most i mpor t ant l y, t he di st r i ct cour t di d not er r i n

t r eat i ng Edgar do' s money l aunder i ng as di st i nct f r omhi s act i ons t o

conceal hi s owner shi p of Ml aga #1. Af t er or chest r at i ng t he

t r ansf er of t he pr oper t y t o Sant i ago and Lebr n, Edgar do ar r anged

t he el abor ate conver si on of t he t hr ee checks t hat compr i sed t he

sal es pr oceeds i nt o ei ght checks t hat cont ai ned f al se r ef er ences t o

t he payees' connect i ons wi t h I U. By di sgui si ng t he pr oceeds of t he

sal e wi t h cashi er ' s checks made out t o r eci pi ent s who woul d never

r ecei ve t he f unds, Edgar do const r uct ed a second l evel of

conceal ment separ at e f r omt he si mpl e pr oper t y t r ansf er . Hence, he

was proper l y subj ected t o puni shment f or t he money l aunder i ng

i t sel f , and hi s sent ence was t her ef or e not l i mi t ed t o t he f i ve- year

st at ut or y maxi mum f or t he under l yi ng bankrupt cy f r aud. See 18

U. S. C. 1956( a) ( 1) ( B) ( speci f yi ng a st at ut or y maxi mum of t went y

year s' i mpr i sonment f or money l aunder i ng) ; cf . Uni t ed St at es v.

Sant os, 553 U. S. 507 ( 2008) ( concl udi ng t hat cer t ai n f i nanci al

t r ansact i ons may not be separat el y puni shabl e as money l aunder i ng) ,

superseded by st at ute, Fr aud Enf orcement and Recovery Act of 2009,

Pub. L. No. 111- 21 2, 123 St at . 1617, as r ecogni zed i n Uni t ed

St at es v. Lyons, 740 F. 3d 702, 727 ( 1st Ci r . 2014) . 24

24 We note t hat Edgardo does not argue that hi s convi ct i on f ormoney l aunder i ng i s unl awf ul based on t he merger of t he chargedmoney l aunder i ng act s wi t h t he under l yi ng bankr upt cy f r aud. Seegener al l y Uni t ed St at es v. Gr asso, 724 F. 3d 1077, 1090- 96 ( 9t h Ci r .2013) ( di scussi ng t he Supr eme Cour t ' s hol di ng i n Sant os t hat

-36-


37/42

Nei t her of t he t wo cases on whi ch Edgar do r el i es suppor t s

a di f f er ent r esul t . I n Uni t ed St at es v. Woods, 159 F. 3d 1132 ( 8t h

Ci r . 1998) , t he cour t f ound no abuse of di scret i on i n t he di st r i ct

cour t ' s deci si on t o depar t downwar d f r om t he money l aunder i ng

gui del i nes wher e t he under l yi ng of f ense was bankrupt cy f r aud. See

i d. at 1136. That deci si on does not say, however , t hat a di st r i ct

cour t must r educe a sent ence i n such ci r cumst ances. I n t he other

case, Uni t ed St at es v. Smi t h, 186 F. 3d 290 ( 3d Ci r . 1999) ,

i nvol vi ng f r aud i n t he oper at i on of a l ot t er y, t he cour t hel d t hat

a sent ence i mposed under t he money l aunder i ng gui del i ne was

di spr opor t i onat el y har sh. I d. at 300. Not onl y have basi c

gui del i nes pr i nci pl es changed si nce Smi t h, see Uni t ed St at es v.

Chi l i ngi r i an, 280 F. 3d 704, 713- 14 ( 6t h Ci r . 2002) , 25 but t hat case

al so i s di st i ngui shabl e because t he chal l enged money- l aunder i ng

gui del i ne t here pr oduced a much harsher sent ence t han ot herwi se

woul d have appl i ed, see Smi t h, 186 F. 3d at 297 ( not i ng t he

f our t een- l evel di f f er ence i n base of f ense l evel ) . Her e, t he money-

cer t ai n t ypes of unl awf ul f i nanci al t r ansact i ons may not pr oper l ybe puni shed i ndependent l y as money l aunder i ng) ; i d. at 1097- 1104( Ber zon, J . , concur r i ng i n par t and di ssent i ng i n par t ) . I n sonot i ng, we do not suggest t hat Edgardo has a pl ausi bl e ar gumentunder Sant os.

25 The Si xt h Ci r cui t not ed t hat " t he Smi t h appr oach i s nol onger r el evant " af t er an amendment t o the Gui del i nes Manualr emoved t he sent enci ng j udge' s di scr et i on t o pi ck " ' t he gui del i nesect i on most appl i cabl e t o t he nat ur e of t he of f ense conduct . ' "Chi l i ngi r i an, 280 F. 3d at 714 ( quot i ng U. S. S. G. app. A ( 1999) ) ; seeal so U. S. S. G. app. A ( 2000) ; i d. app. A ( 2012) .

-37-


38/42

l aunder i ng gui del i ne on whi ch t he di st r i ct cour t r el i ed pr escri bes

onl y a t wo- l evel i ncrease i n t he base of f ense l evel . See U. S. S. G.

2S1. 1( a) ( 1) , ( b) ( 2) ( B) .

I n sum, we f i nd no er r or i n the sent ence i mposed on the

money- l aunder i ng count .

VII. Edgardo: Procedural and Substantive Sentencing Error

Edgardo cl ai ms t hat hi s sevent y- t wo- mont h sent ence was

pr ocedur al l y f l awed because t he di st r i ct cour t f ai l ed t o pr oper l y

wei gh mi t i gat i ng f act or s, and he al so chal l enges t hat t er m of

i mpr i sonment - - t wi ce t he l engt h of hi s si st er ' s - - as

unj ust i f i abl y har sh. We empl oy t he def er ent i al abuse- of - di scret i on

st andar d i n eval uat i ng bot h t he cour t ' s bal anci ng of t he sent enci ng

f act or s and t he subst ant i ve r easonabl eness of t he di st r i ct cour t ' s

sent enci ng j udgment . Uni t ed St at es v. Sur ez- Gonzl ez, 760 F. 3d

96, 101 ( 1st Ci r . 2014) .

A. Procedural Error

Edgar do ar gues t hat t he cour t er r ed by gi vi ng

i nsuf f i ci ent wei ght t o t he many reasons he of f er ed f or l eni ency,

i ncl udi ng hi s mot her ' s poor heal t h and her need f or hel p, hi s ei ght

empl oyees' dependence on t hei r sal ar i es, and hi s ex- wi f e' s and

mi nor chi l dr en' s r el i ance on hi s suppor t . He al so ci t es t he si xt y-

f i ve l et t er s submi t t ed on hi s behal f by f r i ends, nei ghbor s, f ami l y

member s, and cl i ent s descr i bi ng hi mas gener ous, har d- wor ki ng, and

r esponsi bl e. Wi t h r espect to t he cri mi nal acti vi t y i t sel f , he

-38-


39/42

pr ot est s t hat t he cour t unf ai r l y emphasi zed hi s i ni t i al act i ons

conceal i ng pr oper t y and f ai l ed t o credi t hi s vol unt ar y

par t i ci pat i on i n t he set t l ement of t he adver sar y pr oceedi ng and hi s

payment s t o cr edi t or s wi t h non- est at e f unds.

The di st r i ct cour t has broad di scr et i on t o bal ance t he

per t i nent sent enci ng f act or s, see 18 U. S. C. 3553, 26 and t he cour t

i s not r equi r ed t o gi ve ever y f act or equal wei ght . See Sur ez-

Gonzl ez, 760 F. 3d at 101. Edgardo does not ar gue t hat t he

di st r i ct cour t "over l ooked or mi sappr ehended rel evant sent enci ng

f act or s but , r at her , [ compl ai ns] t hat t he cour t gave mor e wei ght t o

f act or s t hat [ he] r egarded as uni mpor t ant and l ess wei ght t o

f act or s t hat [ he] r egar ded as sal i ent . " I d. at 102. However ,

maki ng a j udgment about t he pr oper bal ance of f act or s " i s preci sel y

t he f unct i on t hat a sent enci ng cour t i s expect ed t o per f or m. " I d.

I ndeed, t he di st r i ct cour t expl ai ned t hat i t s choi ce of

sent ence t ook i nt o account t he rat i onal es Edgar do of f er ed f or a

l eni ent sent ence - - i ncl udi ng hi s mot her ' s and chi l dr en' s needs,

t he smal l i mpact of hi s f r aud on credi t or s, and t he l et t er s of

r ecommendat i on - - al ong wi t h t he count ervai l i ng need t o "convey t he

26 Under 3553( a) , a sent enci ng cour t must " i mpose a sent ence

suf f i ci ent , but not gr eat er t han necessar y, " t o achi eve t hepur poses of sent enci ng. 18 U. S. C. 3553( a) . The f act or s cour t sshoul d consi der i n det er mi ni ng t he appr opr i at e sent ence i ncl ude t henat ur e and ci r cumst ances of t he of f ense, t he def endant ' s hi st or yand char act er i st i cs, and t he need f or t he sent ence t o pr omot er espect f or t he l aw and pr ovi de j ust puni shment f or t he cr i me. I d. 3553( a) ( 1) , ( 2) .

-39-


40/42

message t hat t he l aws are t o be obeyed. " The cour t st at ed t hat ,

not wi t hst andi ng t he mi t i gat i ng f act or s, i t "cannot over l ook t he

ser i ousness of t he of f ense, t he act i ons of t hi s def endant , " and t he

appar ent absence of "cl ear r epent ance or r emor se" f or cr i mi nal

conduct t hat Edgar do under t ook knowi ngl y and wi t h del i ber at i on.

The cour t ' s moderat e appr oach i s r ef l ect ed i n i t s deci si on t o

i mpose a sent ence bel ow t he bot t omof t he gui del i ne r ange of 87 t o

108 mont hs. 27

I n sum, t he di st r i ct cour t met i t s obl i gat i on t o wei gh

t he compet i ng sent enci ng consi derat i ons, and i t di d not commi t

pr ocedur al er r or when i t r ej ect ed Edgar do' s di f f er i ng assessment of

t he bal ance. See Surez- Gonzl ez, 760 F. 3d at 101- 02.

B. Substantive Error

Edgar do al so at t acks hi s sent ence as subst ant i vel y

unr easonabl e, ar gui ng t hat hi s ci r cumst ances j ust i f y a downwar d

depart ur e t o a sent ence of pr obat i on wi t h home conf i nement , yet t he

cour t i mposed a t er mof i mpr i sonment t wi ce as l ong as hi s si st er ' s.

I n so ar gui ng, Edgar do depi ct s Ast r i d as t he "mast er mi nd" of t he

bankrupt cy f r aud, poi nt i ng t o her l egal exper i ence and pr i or

si mi l ar conduct i n her own bankr upt cy.

27 The government had r equest ed a sent ence of 108 months,descr i bi ng t hat puni shment as " conservat i ve gi ven the egr egi ousnessof t hi s case, t he way i n whi ch he l aunder ed t he f unds, used t hef ami l y member s and appr opr i at ed i dent i t i es f or t he pur pose ofdef r audi ng t he Feder al Cour t . "

-40-


41/42

As expl ai ned i n t he pr ecedi ng sect i on, however , t he

di st r i ct cour t t ook a measur ed appr oach t o t he per t i nent sent enci ng

f act or s, and i t s "choi ce of emphasi s . . . i s not a basi s f or a

f ounded cl ai m of sent enci ng er r or . " Uni t ed St at es v. Ramos, 763

F. 3d 45, 58 ( 1st Ci r . 2014) ( omi ssi on i n or i gi nal ) ( i nt er nal

quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) . Si gni f i cant l y, t he cour t si ded wi t h

Ast r i d i n assessi ng t he si bl i ngs' ef f or t s t o l ay pr i mar y bl ame on

t he ot her . Poi nt i ng t o Ast r i d' s t est i mony t hat Edgar do was "t he

i nst i gat or [ and] mast er mi nd, " t he cour t not ed t hat she "di dn' t

benef i t or r ecei ve ext r a money f r omt hi s, but t hi s was al l done f or

[ Edgar do' s] f i nanci al gai n. " The cour t f ur t her obser ved t hat

Edgardo was not onl y a wi del y known pl ast i c surgeon, but he al so

had earned a J D and thus " knew about t he l aw. " Moreover , Edgardo

al one was f ound gui l t y of money- l aunder i ng, whi ch account ed f or

par t of t he di f f er ent i al i n t he si bl i ngs' sent ences.

As we have not ed on mul t i pl e occasi ons, " [ t ] he l i nchpi n

of a reasonabl e sent ence i s a pl ausi bl e sent enci ng r at i onal e and a

def ensi bl e r esul t . " Ramos, 763 F. 3d at 58 ( i nt er nal quot at i on

mar ks omi t t ed) . The di st r i ct cour t pr ovi ded bot h her e. We

t her ef or e r ej ect Edgar do' s cl ai m t hat hi s sent ence was

subst ant i vel y unr easonabl e.

-41-


42/42

VIII.

For t he r easons t hat we have expl ai ned, each of

appel l ant s' cl ai ms i s unavai l i ng. We t her ef or e af f i r m t hei r

convi ct i ons and sent ences.

So order ed.

united states v. colon-ledee, 1st cir. (2014)

Documents