United States v. Joseph Catone, Jr.
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 19734
| 4th Cir. | 2014Background
- Catone was convicted of one count of making a false statement in connection with federal workers’ compensation benefits under 18 U.S.C. § 1920.
- He received over $100,000 in OWCP benefits from March 2007 to September 2009 while allegedly concealing work for Angelo’s Maintenance.
- At trial, evidence showed Catone often helped with Center cleaning but was not employed by the Center; since Angelo’s Maintenance contracted cleaning, it did not pay Catone directly.
- Jury convicted on count 1; acquitted on counts 2 and 3; PSR calculated loss as total benefits, leading to a § 2B1.1(b)(1)(F) enhancement and a 16-month sentence.
- District court sentenced and ordered restitution of $106,411.83; Catone objected to loss calculation and statutory maximum, among other items.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Brady violation occurred? | Catone argues Brady evidence was suppressed. | Government contends no Brady violation; information available or discoverable. | No Brady violation; failure to disclose CA-7 form not material. |
| Is § 1920 a felony based on amount of falsely obtained benefits? | Amount exceeding $1000 is an element; mandatory jury finding required. | § 1920 uses a sentencing factor, not an element. | Amount exceeding $1000 is an element; Apprendi applies; jury must find. |
| Harmless-error analysis for Apprendi issue? | Evidence shows Catone received >$100,000; error harmless. | Excess loss not proven; error not harmless. | Apprendi error not harmless; felony conviction vacated; re-sentencing as misdemeanor. |
| Appropriate loss calculation under Dawkins and Dawkins-related guidance? | Loss equals total benefits received; Dawkins supports this. | Loss should be based on reductions from Dawkins/Note 3(F)(ii); not supported by record. | District court erred; remand for recalculation without loss-enhancement; restitution vacated. |
Key Cases Cited
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (U.S. 1963) (exculpatory evidence must be disclosed)
- Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (U.S. 2000) (any fact increasing penalty must be jury-found beyond reasonable doubt)
- Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (S. Ct. 2013) (any fact increasing penalty must be found by jury)
- Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1999) (harmless error framework for omitted elements)
- Dawkins, 202 F.3d 711 (4th Cir. 2000) (loss calculation for government benefits cases; Dawkins framework)
- Hurn v. United States, 368 F.3d 1359 (11th Cir. 2004) (loss element for § 1920 aligns with Apprendi logic)
- Wilson v. United States, 284 F.2d 407 (4th Cir. 1960) (two-crime structure; value as element for enhanced penalty)
- United States v. Mackins, 315 F.3d 399 (4th Cir. 2003) (de novo review of sentencing challenge when statutory interpretation involved)