United States v. Marijan Cvjeticanin
704 F. App'x 89
| 3rd Cir. | 2017Background
- Marijan Cvjeticanin was convicted after a superseding indictment charging nine counts of mail fraud for submitting false invoices to ADP and Broadridge and related fraudulent conduct.
- Cvjeticanin moved to dismiss the indictment as criminalizing a mere breach of contract and later sought a new trial alleging the government removed exculpatory exhibits during deliberations. Both motions were denied by the District Court.
- At sentencing, the Government proposed an actual-loss chart yielding nearly $2 million; the District Court found proved losses of $676,000 and applied a 14-level Guidelines enhancement. Cvjeticanin argued loss should be limited to roughly $28,775 tied to the nine convicted invoices.
- The District Court ordered $1,254,163.36 in restitution to victims including ADP, Broadridge, and the law firm that had to refile advertisements; Cvjeticanin contended the court should consider his finances and that the law firm was not a victim.
- The Third Circuit affirmed in full: the indictment adequately alleged mail fraud, the denial of a new trial was not an abuse of discretion, the district court’s loss calculation was not clearly erroneous, and restitution was proper under the MVRA.
Issues
| Issue | Cvjeticanin's Argument | Government/District Court Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of indictment (mail fraud) | Conduct was a civil breach of contract, not criminal mail fraud | Indictment alleged mailing of false invoices for non-existent services; sufficient under Fed. R. Crim. P. 7(c)(1) | Affirmed: indictment sufficient to charge 18 U.S.C. § 1341 offenses |
| Motion for new trial based on removed exhibits | Jury was deprived of requested exhibits; deprivation poisoned verdict | Exhibits were available, procedures followed, brief removal/misplacing not prosecutorial misconduct | Affirmed: no abuse of discretion; no miscarriage of justice |
| Loss amount for sentencing | Loss should be limited to amount tied to nine convicted invoices (~$28,775) | Loss includes all reasonably related conduct and additional fraudulent invoices proved by preponderance; court made reasonable estimate | Affirmed: $676,000 loss finding not clearly erroneous; proper Guidelines enhancement |
| Restitution and victim status | District court should consider defendant's finances; law firm not a victim because it voluntarily refiled | MVRA forbids considering defendant’s finances; law firm was directly harmed by scheme and restitution is appropriate | Affirmed: restitution allowable under MVRA; law firm is a victim; amount not an abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Huet, 665 F.3d 588 (3d Cir.) (standard of review for motions to dismiss indictments)
- United States v. Vitillo, 490 F.3d 314 (3d Cir.) (indictment sufficiency based on four corners)
- United States v. Jimenez, 513 F.3d 62 (3d Cir.) (loss estimation and deference to sentencing court)
- United States v. Simmonds, 235 F.3d 826 (3d Cir.) (purpose of MVRA to make victims whole)
- United States v. Siddons, 660 F.3d 699 (3d Cir.) (scheme-based relevant conduct for loss)
- United States v. Johnson, 302 F.3d 139 (3d Cir.) (standard for granting a new trial under Rule 33)
- Manrique v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 1266 (U.S.) (procedural timing of notices of appeal relevant to amended judgments)
- United States v. Fallon, 470 F.3d 542 (3d Cir.) (definition of victim under MVRA)