United States v. Cadet, 664 F.3d 27

Cadet was convicted on 16 counts of aiding and assisting in the preparation of false federal income tax returns after a 20-count trial indictment was trimmed to 16 counts.
Evidence at trial relied on five taxpayer-clients and undercover IRS agent Green; Cadet argued he relied on clients' information and made mistakes.
District Court allowed 404(b) evidence of Cadet's interaction with Green to show motive, intent, and absence of mistake, with a 403 balancing finding.
Cadet challenged the restitution amount, which included state and city losses and a 2001 loss not tied to charged counts.
The district court sentenced Cadet to 41 months per count (concurrent) and three years of supervised release, and ordered $104,243 restitution.
Appellate review concluded the sentence exceeded statutory maximums and required remand for resentencing and remapping restitution, while affirming most of the conviction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Rule 404(b) evidence was properly admitted	Cadet argues improper use of other acts to prove knowledge/intent.	Cadet contends the evidence was irrelevant or unfairly prejudicial.	No abuse of discretion; evidence properly admitted with limiting instruction.
Whether sentence exceeds statutory maximums	Cadet concedes potentially excessive terms but argues statutory caps apply.	Cadet asserts the 41-month terms and 3-year supervised release exceed 36 months and 1 year per count.	Plain error; remand for resentencing within statutory limits.
Whether restitution improperly included non-conviction losses and state/city losses	Restitution should reflect losses caused by charged conduct and claimant payments to IRS.	Restitution calculations should not include unrelated or already-paid amounts.	Remand to determine proper victims, adjust for client payments, and exclude unrelated losses.
Whether restitution properly excludes losses tied to uncharged conduct	All losses tied to Cadet's conduct should be recoverable if connected to the scheme.	Uncharged 2001 loss cannot be included.	Remand to exclude the uncharged 2001 loss.

United States v. Mercado, 573 F.3d 138 (2d Cir.2009) (evidentiary abuse review; harmless error standard)
United States v. Paulino, 445 F.3d 211 (2d Cir.2006) (abuse of discretion in evidentiary rulings)
Sims v. Blot, 534 F.3d 117 (2d Cir.2008) (definition of abuse of discretion)
United States v. Abreu, 342 F.3d 183 (2d Cir.2003) (admissibility of other-acts evidence)
United States v. Snype, 441 F.3d 119 (2d Cir.2006) (limiting instructions presumed followed)
United States v. Aminy, 15 F.3d 258 (2d Cir.1994) (similarity standard for knowledge/intent under Rule 404(b))
United States v. Varrone, 554 F.3d 327 (2d Cir.2009) (restitution limited to losses from offenses of conviction)
United States v. Jaffe, 417 F.3d 259 (2d Cir.2005) (multi-factor approach to restitution decisions)
United States v. Garcia, 291 F.3d 127 (2d Cir.2002) (4-factor test for Rule 404(b) admissibility)
Barzingus v. Wilheim, 306 F.3d 17 (10th Cir.2010) (evidence-style comparison in admissibility analysis)