United States v. Clarence Rice, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 23344

Rice, owner of C&J, structured lease arrangements with Frontier Leasing and used C&J funds to cover cash flow, including withholding lessee payoffs and funding online trading
He transferred early payoff monies to his own use instead of Frontier, concealed defaulted leases, sold invalid leases, and provided inaccurate Frontier accountings
Frontier discovered the fraud via internal investigation in 2006, revealing hundreds of defaulted or paid-off leases and substantial losses
Rice was indicted on four counts of wire fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1343, each count tied to a specific interstate wire transfer
District court sentenced Rice to 70 months imprisonment and restitution of $3.3 million after a detailed sentencing showing and evidence of $5.4 million total loss
Jury instructions allowed conviction on each count without unanimity on which of twelve means was used to defraud; Rice appealed on this and other issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Unanimity on means used	Rice argues jurors must unanimously agree on the means	Government argues unanimity not required for means in fraud scheme	No error; unanimity not required for means within complex fraud scheme
Special verdict form on means	Rice sought a special verdict specifying proven means	Government opposed the special verdict form	District court did not abuse discretion; no unanimity on specific means required
Loss calculation and restitution	Rice contends loss should be his own $1.6M gain	Loss equals reasonably foreseeable harm to Frontier/C&J	District court properly calculated loss and restitution not clearly erroneous
Downward departure/variance in sentencing	Rice merits departure/variance due to victim's conduct disclosure	Victim conduct irrelevant under §5K2.10; no plain error in ruling	No plain error; court explained reasons; §5K2.10 not applicable; substantive reasonableness not addressed due to waiver

Richardson v. United States, 526 U.S. 813 (U.S. 1999) (unanimity not required on underlying facts in fraud)
Schad v. Arizona, 501 U.S. 624 (U.S. 1991) (plurality on unanimity of underlying facts in verdicts)
Blumeyer, 114 F.3d 758 (8th Cir. 1997) (jurors need not agree on precise manner of the scheme)
Reeder, 170 F.3d 93 (1st Cir. 1999) (jurors need not agree on each piece of evidence proving participation)
Lyons, 472 F.3d 1055 (9th Cir. 2007) (jury need not be unanimous on particular false promise)
United States v. Frank, 354 F.3d 910 (8th Cir. 2004) (elements of wire fraud; proof per count)
United States v. Calvert, 523 F.2d 895 (8th Cir. 1975) (multiple violations may arise from a single scheme)