United States v. John Threadgill, 572 F. App'x 372

From 1985–2004 Threadgill failed to pay $1,437,176 in federal income taxes while maintaining a lucrative legal practice.
Threadgill paid personal expenses from his law firm accounts and used nominee-trust accounts to conceal assets and conduct real estate transactions.
The IRS pursued a multi-year investigation; a single-count indictment charged willful evasion under 26 U.S.C. § 7201 for one or more affirmative acts.
At trial the government offered extensive documentary evidence and 13 witnesses regarding his finances, assets, and concealment efforts.
Threadgill was convicted by a jury and sentenced to 51 months; on appeal he challenged indictment theory, sufficiency of evidence, and evidentiary rulings.
The court affirmed, holding the government’s theory did not constructively amend the indictment, several acts were proven within the statute of limitations, and the challenged evidence was admissible.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Constructive amendment or variance	Threadgill claims trial theory diverged from indictment's second act.	Government theory altered essential elements via trial evidence and instructions.	No constructive amendment or prejudicial variance; indictment and instructions aligned.
Sufficiency of evidence for statute of limitations	No affirmative act within six years post-2005; acquittal warranted.	Evidence showed a qualifying act within period; conviction proper.	There was sufficient evidence of an act within the limitations period.
Sufficiency of evidence for each affirmative act	Insufficient proof for various acts; acquittal required on those grounds.	Evidence supported all charged acts and intent.	The Government presented substantial evidence for the charged acts; conviction affirmed.
Evidentiary rulings—summary exhibits and opinion testimony	Summaries were impermissible written theory; opinion testimony improper on intent.	Evidence was proper fact-based or admissible under Rule 701; objections not preserved.	No reversible error; any error was not preserved or harmless.

United States v. Budd, 496 F.3d 517 (6th Cir. 2007) (distinguishing variance from constructive amendment)
United States v. Hynes, 467 F.3d 951 (6th Cir. 2006) (constructive amendment threshold and per se prejudice)
United States v. Chilingirian, 280 F.3d 704 (6th Cir. 2002) (definition of constructive amendment)
United States v. Barrow, 118 F.3d 482 (6th Cir. 1997) (variance/prejudice framework)
Miller v. United States, 471 U.S. 130 (1985) (indictment may charge alternative methods of same crime)
United States v. Reed, 167 F.3d 984 (6th Cir. 1999) (circumstantial evidence sufficiency for conviction)
United States v. Farr, 701 F.3d 1274 (10th Cir. 2012) (conspiracy or evasion conduct evidence and intent)
Cheek v. United States, 498 U.S. 192 (1991) (willfulness and knowledge of duty in tax offenses)
United States v. Gross, 626 F.3d 289 (6th Cir. 2010) (W–4 forms and evasion as attempted concealment)
Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1981) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence)
United States v. Adams, 722 F.3d 788 (6th Cir. 2013) (distinction between alternate legal theories and offense scope)
United States v. Gunter, 551 F.3d 472 (6th Cir. 2009) (heavy burden on sufficiency challenges in criminal cases)
United States v. Dimora, 750 F.3d 619 (6th Cir. 2014) (sufficiency review standard and standard of review)