United States v. Cooper, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 16825

Cooper was convicted of conspiracy to defraud, numerous counts of mail and wire fraud, conspiracy to launder money, money laundering, and transactions in property derived from unlawful activity stemming from Renaissance's tax schemes.
Renaissance operated a pyramid-like structure with IMAs paying to receive commissions and promote Tax Relief System (TRS), Platinum Tax Advantage (PTA), and related tools like the W-4 Estimator.
Promotional materials and tax-advice purported to provide deductions and services, but trial evidence showed false or fraudulent tax returns and improperly converted personal expenses to business deductions.
Law enforcement executed multiple warrants on October 11, 2000, at Renaissance facilities and Cooper’s safe deposit box, followed by subsequent seizures; a Franks hearing was sought but denied at trial.
Gleason, a co-conspirator and government witness, later engaged in fraud against the government; suppression of evidence regarding Gleason led to a Brady claim for a new trial which the district court denied.
On April 20, 2010, Cooper was sentenced to 240 months; on appeal, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the denials of motions for acquittal, new trial, and suppression.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for Count 1 conspiracy	Cooper argues there was no agreement to defraud the IRS or others.	No circumstantial proof of an unlawful agreement; co-conspirators testified otherwise.	Sufficient evidence supported conspiracy.
Sufficiency of mail/wire fraud evidence	Evidence showed a scheme to defraud Renaissance customers and IMAs via false tax advice.	Renaissance was legitimate; no true scheme to defraud.	Evidence supported scheme to defraud and related mail/wire fraud convictions.
Brady violation and materiality of suppressed impeachment evidence	Suppressed Gleason impeachment evidence was material to guilt.	Suppressed evidence was cumulative and not material.	Suppressed impeachment evidence was not material; no new trial required.
Cumulative witness testimony and materiality therefrom	Gleason testimony was crucial; suppression could be material.	Gleason was not a unique or indispensable witness; testimony was cumulative.	Gleason was not a unique/critical witness; suppression not material.
Validity and particularity of search warrants; Franks issue	Warrants lacked probable cause and were overbroad; Franks hearing due.	Warrants had substantial basis; affidavits cured any lack of specificity; Franks issue waived.	Warrants were sufficiently particular and supported by probable cause; no Franks hearing required.

United States v. Bedford, 536 F.3d 1148 (10th Cir. 2008) (elements of conspiracy to defraud)
United States v. Nall, 949 F.2d 301 (10th Cir. 1991) (conspiracy elements; interdependence)
Welch v. United States, 327 F.3d 1081 (10th Cir. 2003) (mail and wire fraud elements; identical elements)
Velarde v. United States, 485 F.3d 553 (10th Cir. 2007) (materiality in Brady claims; standard)
Gates v. Illinois, 462 U.S. 213 (Supreme Court 1983) (probable cause; totality of the circumstances)
Riccardi v. United States, 405 F.3d 852 (10th Cir. 2005) (particularity and warrants; cross-referencing affidavits)
Leary v. United States, 846 F.2d 592 (10th Cir. 1988) (scope of description; listing items to be seized)
Janus Indus., Inc. v. United States, 48 F.3d 1548 (10th Cir. 1995) (particularity in broad investigations)
Torres v. United States, 569 F.3d 1277 (10th Cir. 2009) (impeachment evidence materiality; cumulative vs non-cumulative)
Trujillo v. United States, 136 F.3d 1388 (10th Cir. 1998) (cumulative impeachment evidence)
Douglas v. Workman, 560 F.3d 1134 (10th Cir. 2009) (materiality of impeachment evidence; standard)
Nuckols v. Gibson, 233 F.3d 1261 (10th Cir. 2000) ( impeachment evidence motive and credibility)