United States v. Dirosa
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 14951
1st Cir.2014Background
- DiRosa and Renison pursued a Hungary real estate project marketed to attract investors.
- Jablonski, aged 75, invested $600,000 via an escrow setup for the project.
- Renison led most communications and promotions; DiRosa aided with materials and wiring the funds.
- The funds flowed through multiple Hungarian accounts, eventually returning little to Jablonski.
- DiRosa was convicted of wire fraud; district court enhanced the Guidelines for obstructive conduct; he appeals on sufficiency, evidentiary rulings, and sentence.
- Court wholly affirms the conviction and sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for false statements | DiRosa did not make material misrepresentations | Renison caused the misrepresentations; DiRosa played no material role | Evidence supported elements; conviction affirmed |
| Admission of Kiselak and Mesite testimony under Rule 404(b) | Testimony shows DiRosa's intent to defraud; highly probative | Prejudicial and remote; should be excluded under 403 | Abuse of discretion not shown; admission proper |
| Admission of Jablonski's testimony as co-conspirator statements | Statements were made in furtherance of a conspiracy | Conspiracy not proven by Preponderance of evidence | Testimony properly admitted under Rule 801(d)(2)(E) as co-conspirator statements |
| Reasonableness of sentence within Guidelines range | Sentence too lenient given offense severity | Sentence within range; mitigating factors balanced against harms | Sentence 57 months affirmed as reasonable under standard |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Denson, 689 F.3d 21 (1st Cir. 2012) (elements of wire fraud; foreseeability and participation)
- United States v. Woodward, 149 F.3d 46 (1st Cir. 1998) (cooperation or foreseeability of interstate wiring suffices)
- United States v. Appolon, 715 F.3d 362 (1st Cir. 2013) (evidentiary sufficiency; active participation can be inferred)
- Old Chief v. United States, 519 U.S. 172 (U.S. 1997) (unfair prejudice versus probative value in 403 context)
- United States v. Piper, 298 F.3d 47 (1st Cir. 2002) (co-conspirator statements admissible when in furtherance of conspiracy)