United States v. Nardozzi, 2 F.4th 2

Defendant John Nardozzi, a CPA with 40+ years' experience, prepared tax returns for State Senator Brian Joyce, Mary Joyce, and Joyce's law firm.
Nardozzi allegedly mischaracterized personal expenses as business deductions and otherwise misstated transactions (including SEP-IRA and rollover treatments), producing a net tax loss to the government of $598,362.80.
Indicted in January 2018 for one count of conspiracy to defraud the United States (a Klein conspiracy) and eight counts under 26 U.S.C. § 7206(2) for aiding/assisting in filing false tax returns; convicted on all counts after trial.
Trial evidence included Nardozzi's tax expertise, repeated mischaracterizations on returns, and instances where he told Joyce transactions had adverse tax consequences yet prepared returns that avoided taxes.
At sentencing the court imposed 18 months' imprisonment, ordered three years' supervised release and restitution of $598,362.80, and orally adopted the PSR's special supervised-release conditions by reference; no specific restitution payment schedule was set at sentencing.
On appeal Nardozzi challenged (1) sufficiency of the evidence as to knowing/willful conduct and conspiracy, (2) the district court's incorporation by reference of PSR supervised-release conditions without reciting each condition orally, and (3) the failure to set a restitution payment schedule at sentencing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Government)	Defendant's Argument (Nardozzi)	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for Klein conspiracy and willful aiding/assisting false returns	Evidence showed agreement/tacit working relationship, repeated false returns, and knowledge; circumstantial evidence supports intent	No evidence of a conspiratorial agreement; lacked knowledge/willfulness; relied on bookkeepers; was out of the loop	Affirmed. Jury reasonably inferred agreement and willfulness from circumstantial and direct evidence
Adoption of supervised-release special conditions by reference to PSR	Oral adoption by reference to PSR suffices to impose conditions; written judgment may incorporate conditions	District court erred by not orally reciting each PSR condition at sentencing	Affirmed. Oral adoption by reference satisfied precedent; nonstandard conditions need not be recited verbatim if adopted by reference
Failure to set restitution payment schedule at sentencing	Court expressly reserved authority; future schedule would be court-ordered	Court erred by not setting a specific payment schedule at sentencing	Affirmed. Reservation of authority was explicit; defendant failed to show plain error

United States v. Mubayyid, 658 F.3d 35 (1st Cir. 2011) (defines Klein conspiracy elements: agreement to impede IRS and knowing participation)
United States v. Klein, 247 F.2d 908 (2d Cir. 1957) (origin of Klein-conspiracy doctrine)
United States v. Adkinson, 158 F.3d 1147 (11th Cir. 1998) (Klein conspiracy standard on agreement and impeding IRS)
United States v. Tulloch, 380 F.3d 8 (1st Cir. 2004) (written judgment may incorporate supervised-release conditions without oral recitation)
United States v. Sepúlveda-Contreras, 466 F.3d 166 (1st Cir. 2006) (district court must raise nonstandard conditions at sentencing)
United States v. Diggles, 957 F.3d 551 (5th Cir. 2020) (adoption of written list of conditions provides notice; oral adoption of document pronounces conditions)
United States v. Morán-Calderón, 780 F.3d 50 (1st Cir. 2015) (if restitution schedule not set at sentencing, court must explicitly reserve authority to set it later)
United States v. Merric, 166 F.3d 406 (1st Cir. 1999) (authority on reservation of restitution scheduling)