United States v. Leroy Combs
705 F. App'x 620
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- Defendants Leroy Combs, Charles Uptergrove, and Ladonna Moon appealed convictions under 18 U.S.C. § 287 for submitting false claims.
- During trial, co-defendant Gaylene Bolanos had a 2–3 minute outburst in the courtroom in front of the jury; defendants moved for a mistrial.
- The district court read a cautionary instruction (prepared and approved by counsel) and asked jurors whether they could remain impartial; no juror reported bias.
- Uptergrove and Moon requested jury instructions that § 287 false-claim convictions require proof of willfulness/intent to defraud or a good-faith defense; the court declined.
- Combs was sentenced to 45 months; the court relied on his tax-noncompliance history from the PSR and trial evidence.
- Uptergrove sought a two-level acceptance-of-responsibility reduction; the court denied it because he contested the knowing element at trial and chose to go to trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Bolanos’s courtroom outburst required a mistrial | Govt: Outburst not inherently prejudicial; court remedied by instruction and voir dire | Defs: Outburst prejudiced jury against defendants, requiring mistrial | Court: No abuse of discretion; brief outburst plus cautionary instruction and juror assurances were adequate (denied mistrial) |
| Whether § 287 requires proof of willfulness/intent to defraud | Govt: Intent to defraud is not an element of the false-claims prong of § 287 | Uptergrove & Moon: Court should instruct that willfulness/intent or good-faith matters | Court: Declined to instruct; intent to defraud not an element under Ninth Circuit precedent |
| Whether Combs’s 45-month sentence was reasonable | Govt: Sentence supported by PSR and trial evidence of long tax noncompliance | Combs: Sentence challenged as improper/excessive | Court: Sentence reasonable; district court properly relied on PSR and record (no procedural or substantive error) |
| Whether Uptergrove deserved acceptance-of-responsibility reduction | Govt: Denial appropriate because he went to trial and contested knowing element | Uptergrove: Denial improper; contesting guilt shouldn’t bar reduction | Court: Denial proper; taking the case to trial and contesting the knowing element justified refusal of the reduction |
Key Cases Cited
- Sarkisian v. United States, 197 F.3d 966 (9th Cir. 1999) (court’s discretion in assessing prejudice from courtroom events)
- Holbrook v. Flynn, 475 U.S. 560 (U.S. 1986) (comments on inherent prejudice from courtroom occurrences)
- Mannie v. United States, 509 F.3d 851 (7th Cir. 2007) (example of highly prejudicial courtroom violence)
- McCormac v. United States, 309 F.3d 623 (9th Cir. 2002) (district court best positioned to judge jury impartiality after disruptive events)
- Milton v. United States, 602 F.2d 231 (9th Cir. 1979) (intent to defraud not an element of § 287 false-claim prosecutions)
- Carty v. United States, 520 F.3d 984 (9th Cir. 2008) (standard for reviewing sentence reasonableness)
- Fitch v. United States, 659 F.3d 788 (9th Cir. 2011) (permissible reliance on PSR and trial record in sentencing)
- Chastain v. United States, 84 F.3d 321 (9th Cir. 1996) (acceptance-of-responsibility reduction considerations when defendant contests elements at trial)
- Cortes v. United States, 299 F.3d 1030 (9th Cir. 2002) (distinguishing denial of reduction based solely on trial)
- Ochoa-Gaytan v. United States, 265 F.3d 837 (9th Cir. 2001) (acceptance-reduction jurisprudence)
- McKinney v. United States, 15 F.3d 849 (9th Cir. 1994) (acceptance-of-responsibility analysis)
- Ressam v. United States, 679 F.3d 1069 (9th Cir. 2012) (substantive-reasonableness framework for sentences)