United States v. Mitrano, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 19480

Mitrano and Kelly were web-based custodial dispute; final Virginia custody order in 2002 required Mitrano to pay $1,406 weekly plus $300 weekly for medical expenses; Mitrano has paid no child support since.
Mitrano pursued multiple appeals in four states and two federal courts challenging subject matter jurisdiction of the NH custody/order, all of which were rejected.
Mitrano was indicted on August 20, 2008, for willfully failing to pay child support under 18 U.S.C. § 228(a)(3) and tried in the District of New Hampshire.
Evidence at trial showed Mitrano had substantial income and assets, including rental income, two Virginia properties valued over $1 million, and luxury vehicles; his prior finances demonstrated ability to pay.
The government introduced Mitrano’s 2008 bankruptcy filings, which valued assets; the NH DHHS records showed over $400,000 in overdue support for 2005–2008.
Mitrano was convicted by a jury, sentenced to 24 months’ imprisonment, and ordered to pay restitution for all past-due support and interest; on appeal he challenges sufficiency of evidence, jury instructions on willful blindness, and sentencing calculations.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was the evidence sufficient for willfulness?	Mitrano acted with a good faith belief the order was void.	Willfulness could be negated by a good faith misunderstanding of the law.	Evidence supported willfulness beyond reasonable doubt.
Was there sufficient evidence Mitrano could pay at least some portion?	Mitrano’s assets and earning potential show ability to pay.	Income alone should be considered; bankruptcy and lack of bank records undermine ability to pay.	Yes; assets and income demonstrated ability to pay at least part of the obligation.
Was the willful blindness jury instruction appropriate?	There was a conscious course of deliberate ignorance about the legal duty.	Willful blindness should not apply if Mitrano admitted knowledge of the order.	Instruction properly supported by record showing deliberate avoidance of the legal obligation.
Was the sentencing calculation proper regarding loss?	Use of total amount due is proper under loss definition and guidelines.	No evidentiary basis to conclude full amount overdue; potential miscalculation and error.	No plain error; district court properly used the amount due to compute loss and guideline range.

United States v. Smith, 278 F.3d 33 (1st Cir. 2002) (willfulness requires voluntary and intentional act in ability-to-pay context)
Cheek v. United States, 498 U.S. 192 (Supreme Court 1991) (good faith misunderstanding does not negate willfulness; reasonable beliefs have limits)
United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (Supreme Court 2005) (clarifies sentencing and knowledge of legal duties; not a defense to duties)
United States v. Cruz-Arroyo, 461 F.3d 69 (1st Cir. 2006) (courts may reject fanciful legal theories; willfulness can be found despite disputes)
United States v. Azubike, 564 F.3d 59 (1st Cir. 2009) (willful-blindness instruction proper where record shows deliberate ignorance)
United States v. Lipscomb, 539 F.3d 32 (1st Cir. 2008) (standard for willfulness and related jury instructions)
United States v. Perez-Melendez, 599 F.3d 31 (1st Cir. 2010) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence de novo)
United States v. Angulo-Hernandez, 565 F.3d 2 (1st Cir. 2009) (reaffirmation of de novo sufficiency review in the First Circuit)
United States v. McCoy, 508 F.3d 74 (1st Cir. 2007) (plain-error standard in sentencing challenges)
Gonzalez-Castillo, 562 F.3d 80 (1st Cir. 2009) (loss calculation and impact on sentencing under guidelines)