United States v. Jeffrey Martinovich
810 F.3d 232
| 4th Cir. | 2016Background
- Appellant Jeffrey A. Martinovich operated MICG, a FINRA-regulated broker-dealer, and launched Venture Fund with sole control over investments and fees.
- Valuation manipulation: Appellant obtained internal valuations of EPV Solar to inflate asset values and his own management/incentive fees.
- False valuations were used to mislead investors and facilitate redemptions while concealing EPV's deteriorating condition.
- EPV failed in 2008-2010; FINRA closed MICG and Appellant surrendered his broker license amid investigations.
- Appellant was charged in 2012 with conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud, multiple counts of mail/wire fraud, and bankruptcy-related false statements; trial occurred in 2013 with a mixed verdict and sentencing in 2013.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the district court’s interference deprive Martinovich of a fair trial? | Martinovich argues interference violated fair trial rights. | District Court maintains control aided trial clarity; interruptions were permissible. | Interference was improper but not prejudicial enough to overturn verdict. |
| Did the district court’s mandatory-treatment of the Guidelines constitute a procedural error? | Martinovich contends Guidelines were advisory; treating them mandatory was error. | District Court’s stance conflicted with advisory nature and discretion; must be reviewed. | Yes, procedural error; sentence vacated and remanded for resentencing before a different judge. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (1993) (plain-error review; prejudice required)
- United States v. Smith, 452 F.3d 323 (4th Cir.2006) (plain-error standard; timely objection)
- United States v. Godwin, 272 F.3d 659 (4th Cir.2001) (trial conduct and fair-trial requirements)
- United States v. Parodi, 703 F.2d 768 (4th Cir.1983) (holistic review of trial record)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (procedural vs; substantive reasonableness; abuse-of-discretion)
- McManus, 734 F.3d 315 (4th Cir.2013) (remand when guideline error; procedural error)
- Mendoza-Mendoza, 597 F.3d 212 (4th Cir.2010) (remand where advisory guidelines not applied properly)
- Dowell, 771 F.3d 162 (4th Cir.2014) (harmlessness review after procedural error)
- Lentz, 383 F.3d 191 (4th Cir.2004) (appearance of fairness; reassignment considerations)
- United States v. Nicholson, 611 F.3d 191 (4th Cir.2010) (remand when judge biased or appearance of fairness compromised)