United States v. Dirosa, 1st Cir. (2014)

7/26/2019 United States v. Dirosa, 1st Cir. (2014)

1/25

United States Court of AppealsFor the First Circuit

No. 13- 1643

UNI TED STATES,

Appel l ee,

v.

PETER DI ROSA,

Def endant , Appel l ant .

APPEAL FROM THE UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURTFOR THE DI STRI CT OF MAI NE

[ Hon. Geor ge Z. Si ngal , U. S. Di st r i ct J udge]

Bef or e

Lynch, Chi ef J udge,Howard and Thompson, Ci r cui t J udges.

Al an D. Campbel l f or appel l ant .Mar gar et D. McGaughey, Assi st ant Uni t ed St at es At t or ney, wi t h

whomThomas E. Del ahant y I I , Uni t ed St at es At t orney, was on br i ef ,f or appel l ee.

August 4, 2014


2/25

THOMPSON, Circuit Judge. Pet er Di Rosa was sent enced t o

57 mont hs i n pr i son af t er a j ur y f ound hi m gui l t y of one count of

wi r e f r aud. The char ge r esul t ed f r oma t r ansact i on i n whi ch Di Rosa

and an associ ate, Thomas Reni son, convi nced t hen- 75- year- ol d Fr ank

J abl onski t o i nvest $600, 000 i n an el abor at e scheme sur r oundi ng a

r eal est ate devel opment proj ect i n Pol gar di , Hungar y. On appeal ,

Di Rosa chal l enges t he deni al of hi s suf f i ci ency- of - t he- evi dence-

based mot i on f or acqui t t al , t he admi ssi on of cer t ai n t est i mony, and

hi s sent ence. Af t er car ef ul consi der at i on, we whol l y af f i r m.

BACKGROUND

A. The Dynamic Duo

I r oni cal l y Di Rosa and Reni son met some el even years ago

whi l e bot h wer e i nvol ved i n char i t abl e wor k f or t he same par i sh.

Reni son was a 25- year vet eran i n t he i nsurance and f i nance

busi nesses. Di Rosa, accor di ng t o hi s i nt r oduct i on, was a pr oj ect

devel oper i n east er n Eur ope. Di Rosa sai d hi s cur r ent vent ur e

i nvol ved bui l di ng a r esort i n Pol gar di , Hungar y showcasi ng t he

count r y' s nat ur al hot spr i ngs, a popul ar t our i st at t r act i on. The

r esort , he boast ed, woul d al so have sever al gol f cour ses, and

event ual l y a casi no, f or guest s t o enj oy.

Di Rosa tol d Reni son t hat he had al r eady met wi t h sever al

hi gh- r anki ng Hungar i an of f i ci al s who wer e on boar d wi t h t he

pr oj ect , as wel l as an ar chi t ect and adver t i si ng execut i ve f r omNew

York. He al so r epr esent ed t hat t he proj ect was ver y cl ose t o bei ng

-2-


3/25

f unded and t he l and ver y cl ose t o bei ng secur ed. Di Rosa asked

Reni son t o be a " t ype of [ ] par t ner i n t he deal " and be pr i mar i l y

r esponsi bl e f or over seei ng t he admi ni st r at i on of benef i t s f or t he

r esor t ' s est i mat ed t wo t o t hr ee t housand pot ent i al empl oyees.

Addi t i onal l y, Reni son, a sel f - pr ocl ai med "avi d gol f er , " woul d be

gi ven t he opport uni t y t o wor k wi t h a gol f maj or s champi on t o creat e

and manage t he r esor t ' s cour ses, not wi t hst andi ng hi s l ack of

exper i ence i n gol f cour se management .

Di Rosa and Reni son t r avel ed t o Hungar y on a number of

occasi ons - most l y on Reni son' s di me - t o check i n on t he pr oj ect ' s

pr ogr ess. Whi l e on t hese t r i ps, t he pai r of t en met wi t h, among

ot her s, t he at t or ney f or t he pr oj ect , I l di ko Sar dy, and Sar dy' s

husband, J anos Danyi , who was t he pr oj ect ' s account ant .

B. Jablonski's "Investment"

When al l t he shenani gans wi t h J abl onski began, he was a

75- year - ol d r et i r ee who had been l i vi ng wi t h hi s wi f e, Mar guer i t e,

i n Kennebunk, Mai ne. Pr i or to ret i r i ng, J abl onski made a l i vi ng as

a management consul t ant . Af t er hi s empl oyer di scont i nued i t s

management of J abl onski ' s 401( k) account , J abl onski f ound hi msel f

i n need of f i nanci al pl anni ng ser vi ces. At t hat t i me, J abl onski

had been worki ng wi t h an i nsur ance br oker t o obt ai n medi cal

i nsur ance f or hi msel f and hi s wi f e. The br oker r ef er r ed hi m t o

Reni son, who J abl onski ul t i mat el y hi r ed t o i nvest hi s r et i r ement

f unds i nt o a var i abl e annui t y.

-3-


4/25

I n May 2008, Di Rosa t ol d Reni son t hat hi s proj ect needed an

i nvest or - one who was wi l l i ng t o pr ovi de $600, 000 t o be pl aced i n

an escr ow account and used as col l at er al t o pur chase f ar ml and i n

Hungary t hat woul d be conver t ed i nt o commerci al pr oper t y. Reni son

i mmedi at el y t hought of J abl onski as t he i deal candi dat e f or t he

i nvest ment .

Reni son cont act ed J abl onski about t he i nvest ment

oppor t uni t y and, over t he cour se of sever al conver sat i ons ( bot h on

t he t el ephone and at J abl onski ' s home) , he pr omot ed the duo' s i dea.

Whi l e Reni son di d most of t he tal ki ng dur i ng t he "[ t ] wo or t hr ee"

meet i ngs t hat were conduct ed over t he cour se of a week or t wo,

Di Rosa was al ways pr esent . J abl onski was t ol d t hat he woul d

r ecei ve a $400, 000 pr of i t f or hi s i nvest ment , woul d be rei mbur sed

f or t he $52, 000 surr ender char ge he woul d i ncur f or wi t hdr awi ng t he

money pr emat ur el y f r omhi s r et i r ement account , woul d ear n i nt er est

on t he money whi l e i t sat i n t he escr ow account , and woul d r ecei ve

$6, 500 per mont h t o r epl ace t he i ncome he woul d l ose f r om t aki ng

t he money out of t he annui t y. I n addi t i on, he was assur ed t hat hi s

money woul d never l eave t he escr ow account . That ent i r e pr ocess ,

Reni son decl ar ed, i ncl udi ng r ecoupment of al l pr of i t s and f ees,

woul d t ake si x mont hs at t he most , and i n act ual i t y he expect ed i t

woul d wr ap up much sooner . As Reni son del i ver ed hi s spi el , Di Rosa

never cor r ect ed, cl ar i f i ed, or cont r adi ct ed any of t he asser t i ons

Reni son made.

-4-


5/25

J abl onski was al so gi ven wr i t t en mat er i al s compi l ed by

Di Rosa t hat pur por t ed t o descr i be t he pr oj ect i n mor e det ai l ,

i ncl udi ng a mar ket i ng br ochur e about t he resor t and an account i ng

r epor t . The br ochur e cont ai ned i nf or mat i on about t he r esort ' s key

management and i t s advi sor y boar d, boast i ng a member shi p cohor t of

pr omi nent publ i c f i gur es such as a U. S. Congr essman and a

pr of essi onal gol f er ( t he same one wi t h whomReni son was supposed t o

manage t he r esort ' s gol f cour se) . The account i ng r epor t r epr esent ed

t hat t he pr oj ect was sl at ed t o make a $29 mi l l i on dol l ar pr of i t i n

i t s f i r st year . What J abl onski was not t ol d, however , was t hat t hi s

advi sory boar d was not onl y nonoper at i onal , i t was nonexi st ent , and

t hat t he $400, 000 pr of i t he was pr omi sed was cont i ngent on t he

pr oj ect bei ng f ul l y f unded, whi ch, of cour se, at t he t i me i t was

not .

Convi nced he woul d be f ool i sh t o pass on such a pr omi si ng

i nvest ment , on May 27, 2008, J abl onski si gned a l oan document

dr af t ed by Di Rosa r ef l ect i ng t he t er ms of t hei r agr eement . Because

of hi s pr i or r el at i onshi p wi t h J abl onski , Reni son, r at her t han

Di Rosa, si gned t he agr eement . The next day, t he pai r accompani ed

J abl onski t o a l ocal bank t o f aci l i t at e t he wi r i ng of t he f unds

over seas. Di Rosa had a heavy hand i n t hi s pr ocess, assi st i ng t he

bank t el l er s and J abl onski t hr oughout . Bank r ecor ds i ndi cat e t hat

on J une 3, 2008, $600, 000 was t r ansf er r ed f r om J abl onski ' s account

-5-


6/25

t o an account i n Hungary hel d i n t he name of Sardy & Associ ates

At t or neys.

C. Have Funds, Will Travel

Fol l owi ng t he J une 3r d t r ansf er , J abl onski ' s $600, 000

went on a whi r l wi nd wor l d t our . Bet ween J une and September 2008,

t he f unds were t r ansf er r ed back and f or t h numerous t i mes bet ween

sever al Hungar i an account s hel d by Sar dy. Addi t i onal l y, dur i ng t hat

t i me and over t he cour se of sever al t r ansact i ons, appr oxi mat el y

$100, 000 i n cash was wi t hdr awn f r om one of Sar dy' s account s. I n

Sept ember 2008, appr oxi matel y $518, 000 was t r ansf er r ed vi a t wo

separ at e t r ansact i ons f r om Sar dy' s account i nt o an Aust r i an bank

account i n t he name of Danyi ( r emember , he i s Sar dy' s husband) .

Event ual l y, $225, 000 of t hat money came back st atesi de and was

t r ansf er r ed f r om Danyi ' s account t o an account hel d i n t he name of

Di Rosa' s wi f e, Ei l een.

A f ew mont hs l at er , Reni son and Di Rosa met up and Reni son

conf i ded t hat t hi ngs f or hi m wer e "ki nd of f i nanci al l y t i ght . "

Di Rosa i ndi cated t hat he coul d l oan Reni son some money, and short l y

t hereaf t er , Reni son had t wo checks i n hand, one i n t he amount of

$100, 000 and t he other i n t he amount of $5, 000. Both checks were

wr i t t en out of Ei l een Di Rosa' s account , whi ch t he $225, 000 had gone

-6-


7/25

i nt o ear l i er . When Reni son asked Di Rosa where he got t he money

f r om, Di Rosa sai d a f r i end named "Er ni e" had l ent i t t o hi m. 1

Unf or t unat el y f or J abl onski , t he f unds t r avel ed

ever ywher e except back t o hi m. Si x mont hs af t er t he t r ansf er - t he

maxi mum amount of t i me Reni son had sai d i t woul d t ake J abl onski t o

r ecoup hi s i nvest ment - J abl onski had been r epai d a mere $60, 000,

whi ch he assumed t o be the t en percent i nt erest hi s i nvest ment had

yi el ded whi l e i n t he escr ow account . J abl onski was pr omi sed an

addi t i onal $100, 000 f or t he del ay, but al as never saw a di me mor e.

Throwi ng sal t on t he wound, J abl onski bel at edl y f ound out he was

goi ng t o be hi t wi t h a hef t y t ax bi l l ; because he pul l ed t he f unds

f r omhi s r et i r ement account , he was t axed based on an annual i ncome

of $700, 000 i nst ead of hi s usual $100, 000.

Fi nal l y suspect i ng somet hi ng was awr y, J abl onski and hi s

wi f e f i l ed a ci vi l sui t agai nst Di Rosa. Thei r at t or ney communi cat ed

wi t h both Di Rosa and Sardy vi a emai l on sever al occasi ons, but

at t empt s t o secur e an accur ate st atus on t he f unds owed t o J abl onski

- much l ess t he money i t sel f - r emai ned f r ui t l ess.

Per haps f eel i ng he had r eached a dead end, t he

J abl onski s' at t or ney cont act ed t he Feder al Bureau of I nvest i gat i on.

Af t er t he FBI i nt er vi ewed t he J abl onski s, Di Rosa, and Reni son, among

1 Di Rosa l at er admi t t ed i n hi s t est i mony t hat he l i ed t oReni son about wher e t he money came f r om, and that he had act ual l yr ecei ved i t f r om a l i ne of cr edi t on t he pr oper t y i n Hungar y t hathe asked Sardy t o ar r ange.

-7-


8/25

ot her s, on May 24, 2011, t he gover nment f i l ed a cr i mi nal compl ai nt

agai nst bot h Di Rosa and Reni son i n t he Uni t ed St at es Di st r i ct Cour t

f or t he Di st r i ct of Mai ne. The compl ai nt al l eged t hat Reni son and

Di Rosa conspi r ed t o commi t wi r e f r aud and commi t t ed wi r e f r aud i n

vi ol at i on of 18 U. S. C. 1343. A gr and j ur y i ndi ct ed Di Rosa on t he

wi r e f r aud char ge onl y, and t he compl ai nt agai nst Reni son was

di smi ssed wi t h t he gover nment ' s consent . Di Rosa pl eaded not gui l t y.

D. DiRosa's Trial and Sentencing

A t hr ee- day j ur y t r i al began on J anuar y 28, 2013. Dur i ng

t r i al , t he j ur y hear d t est i mony f r om, among ot her s, 2 Di Rosa,

J abl onski , and Reni son ( he was t est i f yi ng under a grant of

i mmuni t y) . The di st r i ct cour t t wi ce deni ed Di Rosa' s or al mot i on f or

j udgment of acqui t t al and t he j ury f ound hi m gui l t y.

Di Rosa' s sent enci ng hear i ng t ook pl ace a f ew mont hs

l at er . The U. S. Sent enci ng Gui del i nes ( t he "Gui del i nes") cal l ed f or

a sent ence between 46 and 57 mont hs, however , t he di st r i ct cour t

j udge i ncr eased t he r ange t o 57 t o 71 mont hs, f i ndi ng t hat f al se

( and perhaps per j ur i ous) st atement s made by Di Rosa t hr oughout t he

pr oceedi ngs war r ant ed an obst r uct i on of j ust i ce enhancement . At t he

sent enci ng hear i ng, t he di st r i ct cour t hear d st at ement s f r om

suppor t er s on bot h si des. On one si de, J abl onski ' s son descr i bed

t he t ol l t he f r aud t ook on hi s par ent s. On t he ot her , Di Rosa' s wi f e

2 We wi l l addr ess t he test i mony of t wo such i ndi vi dual sshort l y.

-8-


9/25

and sever al of hi s f r i ends vouched f or hi s good char act er and

commi t ment t o hi s f ami l y. They al so not ed hi s year s of publ i c

ser vi ce, whi ch i ncl uded a 14- year st i nt on t he boar d of di r ect or s

f or t he t own of Manchest er , Connect i cut , as wel l as hi s servi ng as

t he t own' s deputy mayor and mayor .

The gover nment r equest ed t he f ul l 71 mont hs because of

t he nat ur e and sever i t y of Di Rosa' s l i es, J abl onski ' s subst ant i al

f i nanci al l oss, and Di Rosa' s appar ent l ack of r emor se f or hi s

act i ons. Di Rosa r equest ed a dr amat i c downward var i ance - a 30- day

pr i son t erm f ol l owed by 14 mont hs of home conf i nement - based

pr i mar i l y on hi s age, pr i or publ i c ser vi ce, f ami l y t i es, and t he

need t o car e f or hi s i l l wi f e, her mot her , and hi s agi ng f at her .

The di st r i ct cour t sent enced Di Rosa t o 57 mont hs i n

pr i son - t he ver y l ower end of t he enhanced gui del i ne range - t o be

f ol l owed by t hr ee year s of super vi sed r el ease. The di st r i ct cour t

descr i bed Di Rosa' s conduct as "a most ser i ous of f ense" and al so

suggest ed t hat Di Rosa f el t no r emor se f or hi s act i ons. I ndeed, t he

di st r i ct cour t t hought Di Rosa was "st i l l t aki ng t hat Kool - Ai d of

t hi s Pol gar di cast l e. " Di Rosa t i mel y appeal ed. He r ai ses sever al

i ssues f or our consi der at i on.

DISCUSSION

A. Motion for Acquittal

Di Rosa f i r st ar gues t hat t he di st r i ct cour t shoul d have

gr ant ed hi s mot i on f or acqui t t al because t he gover nment f ai l ed t o

-9-


10/25

pr ove t hat he made any f al se st at ement s t o J abl onski , an essent i al

el ement of wi r e f r aud. We r evi ew t he di st r i ct cour t ' s deni al of a

mot i on f or acqui t t al de novo, and must "deci de whet her , af t er

assayi ng al l evi dence i n t he l i ght most ami abl e to t he gover nment ,

and t aki ng al l r easonabl e i nf er ences i n i t s f avor , a r at i onal

f act f i nder coul d f i nd, beyond a r easonabl 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. Hat ch, 434 F. 3d 1, 4 ( 1st Ci r . 2006) . We

"need not bel i eve t hat no ver di ct ot her t han a gui l t y ver di ct coul d

sensi bl y be r eached, but must onl y sat i sf y [ our sel ves] t hat t he

gui l t y ver di ct f i nds suppor t i n a pl ausi bl e r endi t i on of t he

r ecor d. " I d. We have descr i bed t he bar r i er s t o chal l engi ng a

mot i on f or acqui t t al as "daunt i ng. " I d.

" [ T]he el ement s of wi r e f r aud ar e a ' scheme t o def r aud, '

t he accused' s ' knowi ng and wi l l f ul par t i ci pat i on i n t he scheme wi t h

t he i nt ent t o def r aud, ' and t he use of i nt er st at e or f or ei gn ' wi r e

communi cat i ons' t o f ur t her t hat scheme. "3 Uni t ed St ates v. Denson

689 F. 3d 21, 24 ( 1st Ci r . 2012) , cer t . deni ed, 133 S. Ct . 996

( 2013) ( quot i ng Uni t ed St at es v. Cassi er e, 4 F. 3d 1006, 1011 ( 1st

Ci r . 1993) ) . The mi sr epr esent at i ons made wi t h t he i nt ent t o def r aud

must be mater i al , whi ch we have descr i bed as havi ng "a nat ur al

t endency t o i nf l uence, or i s capabl e of i nf l uenci ng, t he deci si on"

3 Ther e i s no di sput e t hat f or ei gn wi r i ng was used t o wi r eJ abl onski ' s money f r om hi s bank i n Mai ne t o Sar dy' s bank i nHungary.

-10-


11/25

of t he per son or per sons i t i s addr essed t o. Mndez I nt er net Mgmt .

Ser vs. , I nc. v. Banco Sant ander de Puer t o Ri co, 621 F. 3d 10, 15 ( 1st

Ci r . 2010) .

Di Rosa cl ai ms t hat " t here was no evi dence t hat he made a

mat er i al , f al se r epr esent at i on t hat caused J abl onski t o wi r e f unds

t o Hungar y. " That i s, Di Rosa says t hat Reni son di d al l of t he

t al ki ng dur i ng t hei r meet i ngs, as wel l as pr ovi ded J abl onski wi t h

al l of t he wr i t t en mat er i al s ( i ncl udi ng t he l oan document ) , and t hat

i t was Reni son, and not Di Rosa, who caused J abl onski t o wi r e t he

f unds. But thi s cl ai m i s superf i ci al .

I n Uni t ed St at es v. Woodwar d, 149 F. 3d 46 ( 1st Ci r .

1998) , t he def endant made an ar gument much l i ke t he one Di Rosa makes

her e. I n t hat case, t he def endant , a Massachuset t s st at e

r epr esent at i ve, was convi ct ed of ( among ot her t hi ngs) wi r e f r aud

based on t el ephoni c communi cat i ons t hat were used t o book a hotel

r oom i n Fl or i da f or a conf er ence, at whi ch t he def endant was

pl anni ng t o "accept [ ] gr at ui t i es . . . wi t h t he i nt ent t o def r aud

t he publ i c of i t s r i ght t o hi s honest ser vi ces. " I d. at 63. The

def endant , hi msel f , di d not act ual l y make t he cal l t o r eser ve t he

r oom so he ar gued t hat he had not caused t he use of i nt erst at e

wi r i ng ( t hat bei ng t he t el ephone cal l ) t o ef f ect uat e t he meet i ng.

I d. at 63- 64. We af f i r med hi s convi ct i on and sai d i t was enough

t hat t he def endant coul d have reasonabl y f or eseen t hat t he

r eservat i on was goi ng t o be made f or hi m and t hat t he use of

-11-


12/25

i nt er st at e wi r i ng ( i . e. , a t el ephone cal l ) woul d be used t o secur e

i t . I d. Because t he cal l secur ed t he hot el r oom, whi ch i n t ur n

ensur ed t he l ocat i on f or t he f r audul ent gr at ui t y t o be exchanged,

t he cal l "pl ayed an essent i al r ol e i n t he scheme. " I d. at 64.

Our r easoni ng i n Woodward si nks Di Rosa' s argument . He

cl ai ms t hat hi s par t i ci pat i on was mer el y i nci dent al t o causi ng

J abl onski t o wi r e t he money and t hat i t was Reni son who di d al l t he

heavy l i f t i ng. Even assumi ng t hi s t o be t he case, i t was cer t ai nl y

r easonabl e f or Di Rosa t o f oresee - and i ndeed i t was what he hoped

f or - t hat t he mi sr epr esent at i ons Reni son made woul d r esul t i n t he

f or ei gn wi r i ng of f unds f or hi s Hungar i an r eal est at e devel opment

pr oj ect . The mi sr epr esent at i ons wer e undoubt edl y mat er i al as wel l ,

gi ven t hat t hei r ver y pur pose was t o convi nce J abl onski t o wi r e t he

f unds. Fur t her , t he use of i nt er nat i onal wi r i ng her e pl ayed even

mor e of an essent i al r ol e i n Di Rosa' s scheme than di d t he t el ephone

cal l i n Woodwar d.

Even put t i ng al l t hat asi de, t her e i s mor e. The

government pr esent ed evi dence t hat Di Rosa was i n charge of cr eat i ng

some of t he cr i t i cal mar ket i ng mat er i al t hat was pr esent ed t o

J abl onski , namel y t he pamphl et s whi ch l i st ed t he advi sor y boar d and

boar d of di r ect or s wor ki ng on t he pr oj ect as wel l as t he pr oj ect ' s

pr of i t r epor t . Di Rosa' s own t est i mony r eveal ed t hat at t he t i me t he

mat er i al was present ed t o J abl onski , no such advi sory boar d exi st ed

but r at her i t was mor e of a "wi sh l i st " of i ndi vi dual s he was hopi ng

-12-


13/25

woul d come on boar d. The hi ghl y r ecogni zabl e si x- t i me pr of essi onal

gol f champi on was t heref ore not a member of t he nonexi st ent

advi sor y boar d, and nei t her was t he Congr essman. The boar d of

di r ect or s, consi st i ng of " t op Eur opean and Amer i can execut i ves, " di d

not exi st . Not onl y was Di Rosa not t he pr esi dent of Resort Hol di ngs

I nt er nat i onal as r epr esent ed i n t he br ochur e, he t est i f i ed at t r i al

t hat he coul d not r emember whet her t he company had ever even

exi st ed. And, not sur pr i si ngl y, t he mat er i al s f ai l ed t o ment i on t he

f act t hat t he pr oj ect was not yet f ul l y f unded. Di Rosa was al so t he

one who assi st ed i n t he act ual wi r i ng of t he f unds at J abl onski ' s

bank. On t op of al l t hat , we have t he f act t hat $225, 000 of

J abl onski ' s money ended up i n Di Rosa' s wi f e' s bank account .

Gi ven al l t hi s, t her e was no shor t age of evi dence i n t he

r ecor d f r om whi ch a j ur y coul d have r easonabl y concl uded t hat t he

gover nment pr oved al l of t he essent i al el ement s of wi r e f r aud under

18 U. S. C. 1343. See, e. g. , Uni t ed St at es v. Appol on, 715 F. 3d

362, 369 ( 1st Ci r . 2013) ( af f i r mi ng def endant ' s wi r e f r aud

convi ct i on, f i ndi ng t hat despi t e def endant ' s cl ai m t hat he pl ayed

a per i pher al r ol e i n a mort gage f r aud scheme a "compi l at i on of

evi dence [ gave] r i se to t he r easonabl e i nf er ence" t hat he was an

"act i ve par t i ci pant i n t he t r ansact i on" who act ed wi t h t he speci f i c

i nt ent t o def r aud) .

-13-


14/25

B. Admission of Kiselak's and Mesite's Testimony

Di Rosa al so has qual ms about t he di st r i ct cour t ' s

admi ssi on of t est i mony at var i ous poi nt s wi t hi n t he t r i al . Hi s

f i r st cl ai mof er r or r el at es t o t he t est i mony of St ephen Ki sel ak and

St ephen Mesi t e, t wo i ndi vi dual s t hat Di Rosa had sol i ci t ed i n t he

l ate 1990s and i n ear l y 2000 t o i nvest i n t he same Hungar i an

devel opment pr oj ect .

Pr i or t o t r i al , t he gover nment moved i n l i mi ne to admi t

t he Ki sel ak and Mesi t e t est i mony, pur suant t o Feder al Rul e of

Evi dence 404( b) , 4 ar gui ng t hat t he t est i mony was speci al l y rel evant

t o pr ove Di Rosa' s i nt ent t o def r aud J abl onski because he used t he

same repr esent at i ons, pr omi sed t he same "exceedi ngl y hi gh, and

exceedi ngl y r api d, r et ur ns on t he vi ct i ms' i nvest ment s" and, l i ke

f or J abl onski , "t he pr omi sed r et ur ns di d not mat er i al i ze. " I n

r esponse, Di Rosa ar gued t hat t hi s " pr i or bad act evi dence" shoul d

be excl uded because i t t ended t o show hi s pr opensi t y t o commi t cr i me

and was unf ai r l y pr ej udi ci al . Di Rosa al so ar gued t hat t he

t r ansact i ons i nvol vi ng Ki sel ak and Mesi t e wer e t oo remot e i n t i me

t o war r ant admi ssi bi l i t y, si nce t hey occur r ed some t en year s pr i or

t o hi s i nt er acti on wi t h J abl onski .

4 Thi s r ul e pr ohi bi t s t he admi ssi on of evi dence of "a cr i me,wr ong, or ot her act . . . t o pr ove a per son' s char act er i n or der t oshow t hat on a par t i cul ar occasi on t he per son act ed i n accor dancewi t h t he char act er . " Fed. R. Evi d. 404( b) ( 1) . However , suchevi dence may be admi ss i bl e f or ot her pur poses, i ncl udi ng t o pr ove,among ot her t hi ngs, i nt ent . I d. at 404( b) ( 2) .

-14-


15/25

The di st r i ct cour t grant ed t he gover nment ' s mot i on,

f i ndi ng i t " r eadi l y appar ent t hat t hese ot her act s have speci al

r el evance because of t he ' degr ee of si mi l ar i t y t o t he char ged [ wi r e

f r aud] cri me. ' " The di st r i ct cour t al so st at ed t hat t hese i nci dent s

showed t hat Di Rosa "had r eason t o know" t hat when he sol i ci t ed

J abl onski f or f unds, t hat J abl onski woul d not r ecei ve any r et urn on

hi s i nvest ment . At t he out set of t r i al , Di Rosa' s at t or ney ur ged t he

cour t t o r econsi der i t s r ul i ng, but t he cour t decl i ned t o do so, and

t he pai r went ahead and t est i f i ed. On t he st and, Ki sel ak and Mesi t e

descr i bed l oans t hey had gi ven to Di Rosa f or t he same devel opment

pr oj ect i n Hungar y, nei t her of whi ch had ever been r epai d, and whi ch

were based on f al se pr omi ses si mi l ar t o those Reni son and Di Rosa

of f er ed t o J abl onski .

On appeal , Di Rosa makes t he same cl ai ms he di d bel ow,

i . e. , t he evi dence pr of f er ed by Ki sel ak and Mesi t e was hi ghl y

pr ej udi ci al , mi ni mal l y pr obat i ve, and t he i nci dent s t oo remot e i n

t i me. We r evi ew t he di st r i ct cour t ' s admi ssi on of pr i or - act s

evi dence under Rul e 404( b) f or abuse of di scr et i on. See Uni t ed

St at es v. Doe, 741 F. 3d 217, 229 ( 1st Ci r . 2013) ; Appol on, 715 F. 3d

at 372- 73.

Nor mal l y our i nqui r y i s t wof ol d. We f i r st consi der

whether t he evi dence has speci al r el evance under Rul e 404( b) , and

t hen next determi ne whether , pur suant t o Rul e 403, t he di sput ed

evi dence, even i f speci al l y r el evant , shoul d nonet hel ess be excl uded

-15-


16/25

based on consi der at i ons of unf ai r prej udi ce. See Uni t ed St at es v.

Var oudaki s, 233 F. 3d 113, 118 ( 1st Ci r . 2000) . Di Rosa ci t es bot h

Rul e 404 and Rul e 403 i n hi s br i ef but at or al ar gument hi s counsel

pr essed t he Rul e 403 pr ej udi ce pi ece, concedi ng t hat t he subj ect

t est i mony had some r el evance. As a r esul t , we bypass t he quest i on

of speci al r el evance and pr oceed t o a Rul e 403 i nqui r y.

Federal Rul e of Evi dence 403 pr ovi des t hat a cour t "may

excl ude r el evant evi dence i f i t s pr obat i ve val ue i s subst ant i al l y

out wei ghed by a danger of . . . unf ai r pr ej udi ce. " 5 Fed. R. Evi d.

403; see al so Doe, 741 F. 3d at 229. Unf ai r pr ej udi ce "speaks t o t he

capaci t y of some concededl y r el evant evi dence to l ur e t he f act f i nder

i nt o decl ar i ng gui l t on a gr ound di f f er ent f r om pr oof speci f i c t o

t he of f ense char ged. " Ol d Chi ef v. Uni t ed St at es, 519 U. S. 172, 180

( 1997) . We st r ess t hat " i t i s onl y unf ai r pr ej udi ce whi ch must be

avoi ded . . . because [ b] y desi gn, al l evi dence i s meant t o be

pr ej udi ci al . " Var oudaki s, 233 F. 3d at 122 ( i nt er nal ci t at i on

omi t t ed) .

5 Rul e 403 of f ers up some other bases f or excl usi on, namel y"conf usi ng t he i ssues, mi sl eadi ng t he j ur y, undue del ay, wast i ngt i me, or needl essl y pr esent i ng cumul at i ve evi dence. " Fed. R. Evi d.403. We see no i ndi cat i ons t hat any of t hese gr ounds j ust i f y

excl usi on. Di Rosa does not suggest ot her wi se, except f or one br i efr ef er ence t o t he pot ent i al f or t he t est i mony to "conf use[ ] t he j ur yas t o what Di Rosa was on t r i al f or . " However , Di Rosa onl y ar guest he unf ai r pr ej udi ce pi ece of Rul e 403, and so any cl ai mr el at ed t oj uror conf usi on i s wai ved. See Gonzl ez- Mor al es v. Her nndez-Ar enci bi a, 221 F. 3d 45, 48 n. 3 ( 1st Ci r . 2000) ( f i ndi ng t hat t hepar t i es' f ai l ur e t o devel op t he ar gument wai ved i t ) .

-16-


17/25

Her e, bot h Ki sel ak' s and Mesi t e' s t est i mony was hi ghl y

pr obat i ve. The t est i mony was of f er ed t o show t hat Di Rosa act ed wi t h

t he i nt ent t o def r aud J abl onski - an essent i al el ement of t he

char ged cr i me - because Di Rosa empl oyed si mi l ar t act i cs and of f er ed

si mi l ar f al se pr omi ses t o sol i ci t money f r om Ki sel ak and Mesi t e.

I ndeed, t he si mi l ar i t y i s qui t e uncanny ( a f act whi ch makes us l ess

concerned t han Di Rosa wi t h the decade- l ong gap between the pi t ches) .

As wi t h J abl onski , Di Rosa pr omi sed t hat Ki sel ak' s and Mesi t e' s

i nvest ment s woul d be repai d pr ompt l y, and that t hey woul d be

pr of i t abl e, but t hese pr omi ses never came t o f r ui t i on. I n t hat same

vei n, t he t est i mony i s pr obat i ve of t he f act t hat when Di Rosa

sol i ci t ed t he i nvest ment f r om J abl onski , he ar guabl y knew, based

upon hi s pr i or deal i ngs wi t h Ki sel ak and Mesi t e, t hat J abl onski

woul d not be r ecoupi ng hi s i nvest ment ( l et al one a pr of i t ) wi t hi n

si x mont hs as was pr omi sed, i f ever . Di Rosa was sol i ci t i ng money

f r om J abl onski t o f und t he ver y same pr oj ect t hat t en year s ear l i er

had f ai l ed t o mat er i al i ze.

Though t he cl ose si mi l ar i t y bet ween Di Rosa' s i nter act i ons

wi t h Ki sel ak/ Mesi t e and J abl onski cer t ai nl y put s us on al er t f or

possi bl e unf ai r pr ej udi ce r esul t i ng f r om cri mi nal pr opensi t y

evi dence, we ar e sat i sf i ed t hat i s not what happened her e. See Ol d

Chi ef , 519 U. S. at 180- 81 ( expl ai ni ng t hat , under 403, one i mpr oper

gr ound f or convi ct i on i s "gener al i zi ng a def endant ' s ear l i er bad act

i nt o bad char act er and t aki ng t hat as r ai si ng t he odds t hat he di d

-17-


18/25

t he l at er bad act now char ged") . Cr i mi nal pr opensi t y consi der at i ons

need t o be t aken " i n l i ght of t he t ot al i t y of t he ci r cumst ances,

i ncl udi ng the gover nment ' s need f or t he evi dence gi ven ot her

avai l abl e t est i mony, t o pr ove t he i ssue i dent i f i ed pur suant t o t he

404( b) speci al r el evance anal ysi s. " Var oudaki s, 233 F. 3d at 122.

I n t he i nst ant mat t er , Ki sel ak' s and Mesi t e' s t est i mony was cr uci al

t o t he gover nment ' s case, as i t was t he onl y evi dence avai l abl e t o

show t hat at t he t i me he appr oached J abl onski f or t he money f or hi s

pr oj ect i n Hungar y, Di Rosa had r eason t o bel i eve t hat J abl onski was

not l i kel y t o r ecoup any, much l ess al l , of hi s i nvest ment . Di Rosa

poi nt s t o no "ot her , non- pr ej udi ci al evi dence" t he gover nment coul d

have used i nst ead.

An abuse of di scr et i on showi ng i s not an easy one t o

make. We af f or d def er ence t o t he di st r i ct cour t ' s wei ghi ng of

pr obat i ve val ue ver sus unf ai r ef f ect , onl y i n "ext r aor di nar i l y

compel l i ng ci r cumst ances" r ever si ng t hat "on- t he- spot j udgment " f r om

"t he vi st a of a col d appel l at e r ecor d. " Doe, 741 F. 3d at 229. Thi s

i s not one of t hose ci r cumst ances. The cour t di d not abuse i t s

di scr et i on i n admi t t i ng t he t est i mony.

C. Admission of Jablonski's Testimony

Next , Di Rosa ar gues t hat t he di st r i ct cour t er r ed i n

al l owi ng J abl onski t o t est i f y at l engt h as t o st at ement s made by

Reni son dur i ng t hei r meet i ngs because t he st at ement s ar e i nadmi ssi bl e

hear say. The di st r i ct cour t al l owed t he t est i mony i n as st at ement s

-18-


19/25

made by a coconspi r ator , and Di Rosa argues t hat t hi s was er r or

because t he gover nment f ai l ed t o pr ove by a preponderance of t he

evi dence t hat he and Reni son were act i ng i n a conspi r acy. The

government r etort s t hat t he t est i mony was i ndeed admi ss i bl e as co-

conspi r at or st at ement s, see Fed. R. Evi d. 801( d) ( 2) ( E) , or i n t he

al t er nat i ve as adopt i ve admi ssi ons, see i d. 801( d) ( 2) ( B) . We agr ee

t he t est i mony was pr oper l y admi t t ed by t he cour t under t he co-

conspi r at or / j oi nt vent ur e aegi s. 6

Our r evi ew of t he di st r i ct cour t ' s deci si on on t hi s i ssue

i s f or pl ai n er r or onl y, as Di Rosa seems t o concede7 i n hi s br i ef

t hat he di d not pr oper l y pr eser ve hi s obj ect i on8 t o t he t est i mony at

t r i al . See Uni t ed St at es v. Snchez- Ber r os, 424 F. 3d 65, 73 ( 1st

Ci r . 2005) . "Revi ew f or pl ai n er r or ent ai l s f our showi ngs: ( 1) t hat

6 Gi ven t hi s det er mi nat i on, we need not del ve i nt o t he mer i t sof t he government ' s adopt i ve admi ss i ons ar gument , see Uni t ed St ates

v. Mi l l er , 478 F. 3d 48, 51 ( 1st Ci r . 2007) ( expl ai ni ng t he doct r i neof adopt i ve admi ssi ons r est s on t he not i on t hat "a par t y' sagr eement wi t h a f act st at ed by anot her may be i nf er r ed f r om ( or' adopt ed' by) si l ence") , t hough, at a mi ni mum, t he ar gument hassome sur f ace appeal .

7 I n hi s br i ef , Di Rosa says t hat he r ai sed an obj ect i on t oJ abl onski ' s t est i mony at t r i al , but he concedes t hat t he obj ect i onwas "perhaps bel ated[ ] " and pr oceeds t o f ashi on hi s argument undert he pl ai n er r or st andar d of r evi ew.

8 We do not mean t o i mpl y that Di Rosa' s counsel shoul d have

obj ect ed t o t he t est i mony. The deci si on not t o obj ect may i ndeedhave been a t act i cal one, e. g. , J abl onski ' s t est i mony coul d havepersuaded t he j ur y t hat t he more vocal Reni son was t he one t obl ame. See St r i ckl and v. Washi ngt on, 466 U. S. 668, 689( 1984) ( r ecogni zi ng t hat counsel has " wi de l at i t ude" when maki ngt act i cal deci si ons) . I n any event , i t i s not an i ssue we need t odeci de.

-19-


20/25

an er r or occur r ed ( 2) whi ch was cl ear or obvi ous and whi ch not onl y

( 3) af f ect ed t he def endant ' s subst ant i al r i ght s, but al so ( 4)

ser i ousl y i mpai r ed t he f ai r ness, i nt egr i t y, or publ i c r eput at i on of

j udi ci al proceedi ngs. " I d.

Feder al Rul e of Evi dence 801( d) ( 2) ( E) pr ovi des t hat a

st at ement i s not hear say i f i t " i s of f er ed agai nst an opposi ng par t y

and . . . was made by the par t y' s coconspi r ator dur i ng and i n

f ur t her ance of t he conspi r acy. " To admi t a st at ement under t hi s

r ul e, f our el ement s must be sat i sf i ed by a pr eponder ance of t he

evi dence: ( 1) t he exi st ence of a conspi r acy; ( 2) t he def endant ' s

member shi p i n the conspi r acy; ( 3) t he decl ar ant ' s member shi p i n t he

conspi r acy; and ( 4) t hat t he decl ar ant ' s st at ement was made i n

f ur t her ance of t he conspi r acy. Uni t ed St at es v. Col n- D az, 521 F. 3d

29, 35- 36 ( 1st Ci r . 2008) .

Here a preponder ance of t he evi dence showed t hat a

conspi r acy exi st ed, and bot h Di Rosa and Reni son wer e par t of i t .

Fi r st , t he compl ai nt char ged bot h Di Rosa and Reni son wi t h conspi r acy.

The f act t hat Di Rosa was not ul t i mat el y i ndi ct ed f or conspi r acy, or

t hat Reni son was not named as a coconspi r at or , i s not especi al l y

sur pr i si ng gi ven t hat Reni son t est i f i ed f or t he gover nment under a

gr ant of i mmuni t y. Nor i s i t par t i cul ar l y i mpor t ant t hat Di Rosa was

not so i ndi ct ed, as t he appl i cabi l i t y of t he coconspi r at or except i on

i s not condi t i oned on a conspi r acy bei ng char ged i n t he i ndi ct ment .

See Uni t ed St at es v. Washi ngt on, 434 F. 3d 7, 13 ( 1st Ci r . 2006) .

-20-


21/25

Fur t her , t he t est i mony of f er ed at t r i al est abl i shed t he r el at i onshi p

between Di Rosa and Reni son, as wel l as t hei r combi ned goal of get t i ng

J abl onski t o i nvest i n t he Hungar i an proj ect . And i t was al so

est abl i shed that Di Rosa was no uni nf or med, i nnocent byst ander dur i ng

t he meet i ngs wi t h J abl onski . He knew t hat vi r t ual l y al l of t he

supposed chapt er and ver se t hat Reni son pr esent ed t o J abl onski was

f al se, yet by hi s own admi ss i on Di Rosa t ook no except i on t o any of

Reni son' s st at ement s. On t op of t hat , he benef i t t ed handsomel y f r om

Reni son' s l i es, wi t h $225, 000 of J abl onski ' s money endi ng up i n

Di Rosa' s wi f e' s account . A f eat made possi bl e when Di Rosa - i n what

can cer t ai nl y be char acter i zed as a rat i f i cat i on of al l t hat Reni son

sai d - assi st ed i n ef f ect uat i ng t he wi r e t r ansf er at t he bank.

The cour t al so suppor t abl y f ound t hat Reni son' s comment s

wer e i n f ur t her ance of Di Rosa and Reni son' s j oi nt vent ur e. Sur el y

i t woul d be di f f i cul t t o f ashi on a wor kabl e ar gument t o t he cont r ar y.

I t i s cl ear t hat Reni son' s t out i ng of t he pr oj ect ' s l aur el s was done

i n an ( ul t i mat el y successf ul ) at t empt t o get J abl onski t o hand over

hi s savi ngs. See Uni t ed St at es v. Pi per , 298 F. 3d 47, 54 ( 1st Ci r .

2002) ( pr ovi di ng t hat gener al l y speaki ng "a coconspi r at or ' s st at ement

i s consi der ed t o be i n f ur t her ance of t he conspi r acy as l ong as i t

t ends t o pr omot e one or mor e of t he obj ect s of t he conspi r acy") .

I n sum, we see no r eason t o concl ude t hat t he di st r i ct

cour t er r ed, pl ai nl y or ot her wi se, i n admi t t i ng t he t est i mony agai nst

-21-


22/25

Di Rosa. Because we di scer n no err or , we need not addr ess t he

r emai ni ng pr ongs of t he pl ai n er r or t est .

D. Sentence

Fi nal l y, Di Rosa t akes i ssue wi t h t he di st r i ct cour t ' s

i mposi t i on of a 57- mont h, wi t hi n- Gui del i nes sent ence. Our r evi ew of

sent enci ng deci si ons i s f or abuse of di scr et i on, whi ch, as we have

sai d, i s r eal l y an assessment f or r easonabl eness. See Denson 689

F. 3d at 26. Our assessment " i nvol ves a pr ocedur al as wel l as a

subst ant i ve i nqui r y. " Uni t ed St at es v. Pol i t ano, 522 F. 3d 69, 72

(1st Ci r . 2008) ( ci t i ng Gal l v. Uni t ed St at es, 522 U. S. 38, 51

( 2007) ) . Thi s means we f i r st deci de whet her t he di st r i ct j udge made

any pr ocedur al mi sst eps, such as i mpr oper l y cal cul at i ng t he

Gui del i nes range or f ai l i ng t o adequat el y expl ai n t he sent ence. See

i d. And t hen we move on t o whet her t he sentence i mposed i s act ual l y

subst ant i vel y r easonabl e. See i d. A pl ausi bl e r at i onal e and

def ensi bl e r esul t i s t he so- cal l ed "l i nchpi n of a r easonabl e

sent ence. " Uni t ed St at es v. Mar t i n, 520 F. 3d 87, 96 ( 1st Ci r . 2008) .

Di Rosa f r ames hi s chal l enge sol el y as a subst ant i ve one

but i n r eal i t y - t hough t he di vi di ng l i ne bet ween t hese t wo t ypes of

chal l enges i s not t he cl ear est - he appear s t o be mount i ng more of

a pr ocedur al at t ack. Par t i cul ar l y, he compl ai ns t hat t he di st r i ct

cour t f ai l ed t o adequat el y expl ai n why i t woul d not awar d Di Rosa t he

r educed sent ence he sought based on the var i ous mi t i gat i ng f act or s

advanced by Di Rosa, e. g. , hi s cl ean cr i mi nal r ecor d, hi st or y of

-22-


23/25

publ i c ser vi ce, and f ami l y car e- t aki ng r esponsi bi l i t i es. See

Pol i t ano, 522 F. 3d at 72 ( pr ovi di ng f ai l ur e t o sat i sf actor i l y expl ai n

a sent ence as an exampl e of a pr ocedur al er r or ) . Gi vi ng Di Rosa the

benef i t of t he doubt , we addr ess both t he pr ocedur al and subst ant i ve

r easonabl eness pr ongs, st ar t i ng wi t h t he f or mer .

Si mpl y sai d, we see not hi ng wr ong wi t h t he di st r i ct

cour t ' s expl anat i on of Di Rosa' s sent ence. To st ar t , t he di st r i ct

cour t consi der ed many, i f not al l of t he mi t i gat i ng ci r cumst ances set

f or t h by Di Rosa. I n hi s sent enci ng col l oquy, t he j udge not ed sever al

of Di Rosa' s vi r t uous per sonal char act er i st i cs. He spoke about how

f r i ends and f ami l y had wr i t t en l et t er s and had spoken at Di Rosa' s

sent enci ng hear i ng about hi s good character , and how t hey were

shocked t hat he was i nvol ved i n any t ype of cr i mi nal act i vi t y. The

j udge al so r ecogni zed t hat " f or a number of years [ Di Rosa] was

i mpassi oned i n hi s desi r e t o ser ve t he publ i c. "

Whi l e the di st r i ct cour t may not have di scussed each of

t he f act or s Di Rosa set f or t h i n t ur n ( e. g. , hi s cl ean r ecor d, age,

and hi s r esponsi bi l i t i es car i ng f or hi s wi f e, her mot her , and hi s

f at her ) , t he cour t need not expl i ci t l y do so i n a checkl i st - t ype

f ashi on. See, e. g. , Uni t ed St at es v. Zapat a, 589 F. 3d 475, 487 ( 1st

Ci r . 2009) ( st at i ng t hat "[ a] l t hough t he cour t di d not expl i ci t l y

di scuss t he per sonal char act er i st i cs of t he def endant t hat wer e

hi ghl i ght ed by def ense counsel , t hat does not mean i t f ai l ed t o

consi der t hem") . Mor eover , a wi t hi n- Gui del i nes sent ence, such as

-23-


24/25

Di Rosa' s, "r equi r es l ess expl anat i on" t han one t hat f al l s out si de t he

Gui del i nes. Uni t ed St at es v. Mader a- Or t i z, 637 F. 3d 26, 30 ( 1st Ci r .

2011) . Her e we have no t r oubl e di scer ni ng t he cour t ' s r at i onal e; i t s

expl anat i on was suf f i ci ent .

By the same token, Di Rosa' s sent ence was subst ant i vel y

r easonabl e. The cour t consi der ed Di Rosa' s vi r t uous char act er i st i cs

but f ound mor e si gni f i cant " t he nat ur e and ci r cumst ances of t he

of f ense, t he need t o pr omot e r espect f or t he l aw, j ust puni shment ,

and det er r ence. " Si mpl y "i dent i f yi ng pot ent i al l y mi t i gat i ng f act or s"

does not guar ant ee Di Rosa t hat he wi l l r ecei ve a reduced sent ence.

Mader a- Or t i z, 637 F. 3d at 30. Nor can Di Rosa successf ul l y chal l enge

t he subst ant i ve r easonabl eness of hi s sent ence because the di st r i ct

cour t , when wei ghi ng hi s vi r t uous char act er i st i cs agai nst t he mor e

nef ar i ous f actor s (t he decei t , l oss, and har m r esul t i ng f r om hi s

act i ons) came up wi t h a sent ence t hat di sf avor ed hi m. See i d.

The di st r i ct cour t made a j udgment cal l - wel l wi t hi n t he

wi de l at i t ude i t i s af f or ded - and on bal ance, t he cour t came up wi t h

a l ower end of t he Gui del i nes 57- mont h pr i son sent ence. A successf ul

chal l enge t o a sent ence f al l i ng wi t hi n t he Gui del i nes i s not an easy

one t o make; " f ai r l y power f ul mi t i gat i ng r easons" must be gi ven and

we must be persuaded t hat t he di st r i ct j udge was "unr easonabl e i n

bal anci ng pr os and cons. " Uni t ed St at es v. St one, 575 F. 3d 83, 95

( 1st Ci r . 2009) . Di Rosa has made no such showi ng.

-24-


25/25

Lef t wi t h no pr ocedur al bl under s and an emi nent l y

r easonabl e sent ence, we f i nd t he cour t di d not abuse i t s di scr et i on.

Di Rosa' s sent ence st ands.

CONCLUSION

For t he r easons set out at l engt h above, each of Di Rosa' s

of f er i ngs on appeal f ai l s t o convi nce. Di Rosa' s convi ct i on and

sentence areAFFIRMED.

-25-

United States v. Dirosa, 1st Cir. (2014)

Documents