United States v. Appolon, 715 F.3d 362

Appolon was charged in a mortgage fraud scheme involving straw buyers, falsified loan applications, and inflated purchase prices.
The scheme led to defaulted loans and large lender losses across multiple properties, including two key properties at Third Street and Washington Street.
Ralph Appolon acted as a loan originator, recruited straw buyers, prepared loan applications with false statements, and participated in closings.
A jury convicted Appolon on a conspiracy count and four counts of wire fraud after a lengthy trial.
The district court sentenced Appolon to concurrent terms and ordered substantial forfeiture; this appeal challenges evidentiary rulings, sufficiency of the evidence, and loss calculations.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for wire fraud counts	Appolon contends the government failed to prove material misrepresentations and intent	Appolon argues lack of evidence that misrepresentations mattered to lenders	Sufficient evidence supports material misrepresentations and intent
Conspiracy agreement sufficiency	Government showed Appolon agreed to participate in unlawful scheme	Appolon argues no explicit agreement or shared plan	Evidence supports an agreement and Appolon's participation in the conspiracy
Admission of Lindley files	Lindley files properly authenticated and relevant to crimes	Challenges to authenticity and admissibility	District court did not abuse discretion; Lindley files properly admitted for authentication and non-hearsay purpose
Uncharged conduct under Rule 404(b)	Uncharged transactions show knowledge, intent, and common scheme	Risk of unfair prejudice from similar acts	Evidence admissible for special relevance and balanced under Rule 403; not used as propensity evidence

Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1999) (materiality requirements for false statements in fraud)
Sawyer, 85 F.3d 713 (1st Cir. 1996) (elements of wire fraud)
Cassiere, 4 F.3d 1006 (1st Cir. 1993) (defining elements of wire fraud and reliance on fraudulent acts)
Muñoz-Franco, 487 F.3d 25 (1st Cir. 2007) (conspiracy liability and scope of agreement)
Vázquez-Botet, 532 F.3d 37 (1st Cir. 2008) (foreseeability and wire transmissions in fraud)
Mardirosian, 602 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2010) (de novo review of sufficiency of evidence; standard)
Rodríguez–Velez, 597 F.3d 32 (1st Cir. 2010) (evidence review and standard of proof)
Kenrick, 221 F.3d 19 (1st Cir. 2000) (materiality of misrepresentation in lending)
Wyatt, 561 F.3d 49 (1st Cir. 2009) (Rule 404(b) and similarity of uncharged acts)
Landrau-López, 444 F.3d 19 (1st Cir. 2006) (Rule 404(b) probative value and prejudice)