United States v. Mark Landersman
886 F.3d 393
4th Cir.2018Background
- Lee Hall (Navy intelligence official) arranged for $1,657,750 of Navy funds—originally authorized for "intelligence studies"—to be disbursed to CACI for sole‑source procurement of 349 unserialized firearm suppressors manufactured for Mark Landersman (his boss’s brother).
- Hall submitted sole‑source justification materials to CACI misrepresenting the vendor identity, expertise, past performance, pricing, and urgency; Mark largely referred CACI questions to Hall and furnished inflated labor figures while subcontracting actual labor for under $10,000.
- The suppressors arrived unserialized and untested; Hall signed a DD‑250 certifying inspection before the items were received and while he was on administrative leave, prompting CACI to pay the second 50% installment ($828,875).
- NCIS seized the boxes and Navy testing found the suppressors failed performance standards (sound/flash), making them ineligible for contract award. Investigation led to indictments for conspiracy and conversion under 18 U.S.C. § 641 and related statutes.
- After bench trials (with classified‑information procedures under CIPA), the district court convicted Mark of conspiracy (all three objects) and Hall of mail fraud conspiracy (object three) and conversion of government funds; Hall was later acquitted of one conspiracy object after the court acknowledged it erred by relying on evidence not offered at his trial.
- On appeal, the Fourth Circuit reviewed sufficiency of the evidence, admissibility of expert testing, and multiple evidentiary and due‑process arguments, and affirmed the convictions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for mail‑fraud conspiracy | Government: circumstantial proof showed agreement, willful participation, and overt acts to defraud via false sole‑source procurement and misrepresentations | Hall/Landersman: transactions legitimate (need existed), pricing reasonable, no willful scheme; challenged factual findings | Affirmed: substantial circumstantial evidence supported conspiracy and overt acts (false statements, concealment, routing of funds) |
| Sufficiency of evidence for conversion (18 U.S.C. § 641) | Government: Hall knowingly caused misuse of funds allocated for studies to buy unauthorized suppressors to benefit Landersman | Hall: lacked notice when conversion occurred; acted in good faith believing need/authorization existed | Affirmed: § 641 covers knowing misuse/unauthorized use; evidence showed Hall knowingly circumvented procurement and misused funds |
| Admissibility/weight of expert testing (Davis) | Government: Davis’s testing on comparable weapon system and standards showed suppressors failed performance and were unusable | Defendants: testing used wrong platform/standards (MK17) and unfairly portrayed suppressors as useless | Affirmed: district court did not abuse discretion; Davis’s methods were reliable, relevant, and went to weight, not exclusion |
| Alleged evidentiary/Brady/CIPA errors and destroyed notes | Defendants: government’s late/missing disclosures and destroyed Hall notes undermined due process and warranted dismissal or favorable inferences | Government: any disclosure issues were addressed by court orders/inferences; errors were harmless given the evidence | Affirmed: court’s adverse inferences and remedial rulings sufficed; remaining errors (including exclusion of prior testimony) were harmless or within discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Morissette v. United States, 342 U.S. 246 (1952) (defining "knowing conversion" and scope of unauthorized use under § 641)
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) (district court gatekeeping for expert admissibility)
- United States v. Burgos, 94 F.3d 849 (4th Cir. 1996) (agreement to conspire may be inferred from circumstantial evidence)
- United States v. Pasquantino, 336 F.3d 321 (4th Cir. 2003) (fraud scheme can be material falsehoods or active concealment supporting mail‑fraud theory)
- United States v. Armel, 585 F.3d 182 (4th Cir. 2009) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence in bench trial)
- United States v. Fogel, 901 F.2d 23 (4th Cir. 1990) ( § 641 covers misuse or unauthorized use of government property)