United States v. Gregory Bartko
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 17914
| 4th Cir. | 2013Background
- Bartko led a scheme to raise funds for Caledonian and Capstone Funds via Hollenbeck and others, misrepresenting guarantees and securities status.
- Hollenbeck SBI raised $701,000 for Caledonian from 171 investors; funds were comingled and not used for investments.
- Capstone funds were raised after Caledonian’s dissolution; Bartko and co-defendants used LRM to obscure investor funds and reroute refunds.
- Bartko used his law and broker/dealer credentials to solicit and manage investor funds; embezzlement occurred through forged investor signatures.
- Interpleader action returned most Capstone money to court; some funds remained diverted to Bartko’s group.
- Bartko was convicted after a 13-day trial on counts including conspiracy, mail fraud, and sale of unregistered securities; several counts and related claims were dismissed before trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Brady/Giglio issues concerning withheld evidence | Bartko argues withheld Hollenbeck agreements and related materials were Brady/Giglio evidence. | Bartko contends government concealment undermined defense; government asserts non-materiality. | No reversible error; cumulative impeachment not material to verdict. |
| Impeachment and credibility of cooperating witnesses | Bartko claims failure to disclose proffer agreements deprived ability to impeach Hollenbeck. | Government argues impeachment was already thorough; agreements were cumulative. | District court did not err; extensive impeachment rendered further disclosure non-prejudicial. |
| Ex parte sealed document | Bartko alleges improper consideration of an ex parte sealed document. | Government submitted document for in camera review; no impact on Bartko. | Court agrees document caused no harm; no reversal needed. |
| Jury instructions on accomplice/informant and multiple conspiracies | Bartko seeks specific accomplice/informer and multiple-conspiracy Instructions. | District court properly refused when not supported by facts or prejudice. | Instructions not required; no reversible error given the record. |
| Sentencing enhancements based on loss, victims, and broker status | Bartko challenges loss, victim count, and 4-level broker/dealer enhancement. | Government argues enhancements were properly supported by record and guidelines. | Enhancements affirmed; no reversible error found. |
Key Cases Cited
- Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264 (U.S. 1959) (government use of false evidence violates due process)
- Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (U.S. 1972) (improper use of false or misleading witness testimony)
- United States v. Kelly, 35 F.3d 929 (4th Cir. 1994) (standard for impeachment evidence and falsity impact)
- Stokes v. United States, 261 F.3d 496 (4th Cir. 2001) (Brady materiality framework (favorable, material, disclosed))
- Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (U.S. 1995) (materiality standard for suppressed evidence)
- Moseley v. Branker, 550 F.3d 312 (4th Cir. 2008) (reaffirming materiality assessment under Brady/Giglio)
- Agurs, 427 U.S. 97 (U.S. 1976) (context for evaluating suppressed evidence)
- United States v. Lee, 106 U.S. 196 (U.S. 1882) (principle that no officer is above the law)
- United States v. Cooper, 654 F.3d 1104 (10th Cir. 2011) (impeachment evidence and materiality considerations (cumulative))
- Ellis, 121 F.3d 908 (4th Cir. 1997) (undergirding Brady materiality with cumulative analysis)