25 F.4th 829
11th Cir.2022Background
- Nathan Hardwick, co-founder and manager at Morris Hardwick Schneider (MHS), siphoned about $26.5 million from the firm (approximately $19 million from client trust accounts) from 2011–2014; Asha Maurya, MHS controller then CFO, assisted by directing transfers and underreporting distributions.
- Hardwick was indicted, tried, and convicted of conspiracy, wire fraud (21 counts), and making a false statement to an FDIC-insured bank; sentenced to 180 months (upward variance from Guidelines 108–135 months).
- Maurya pleaded guilty to conspiracy and received an 84-month sentence; the district court ordered joint-and-several restitution of $40,307,431 against both defendants.
- On appeal, Hardwick challenges various trial rulings, evidentiary exclusions, sufficiency of the evidence, and substantive reasonableness of his sentence; Maurya (joined by Hardwick) challenges the restitution order and contends an ex post facto Guidelines enhancement was applied.
- The Eleventh Circuit affirmed Hardwick’s convictions and sentence (except restitution), vacated the restitution order for both defendants for lack of factual findings, and vacated Maurya’s sentence for applying a Guidelines enhancement issued after her offense (requiring resentencing).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ex post facto application of post‑offense Guidelines (Maurya) | Government conceded district court applied 2018 Guidelines containing a 2015 enhancement after offense conduct ended in Aug. 2014. | Maurya argued sentence violated Ex Post Facto Clause. | Court: Error was plain; vacate and remand for resentencing. |
| Restitution order adequacy | Government supported restitution amount at sentencing. | Maurya and Hardwick argued district court gave no specific factual findings tying restitution to losses. | Court: Vacated restitution order for lack of specific findings; remand for district court to make findings. |
| Bill of particulars denial (Hardwick) | Gov’t argued indictment was sufficiently specific. | Hardwick sought detailed transactional and entitlement information to prepare defense. | Court: Denial not abuse of discretion; indictment and other disclosures sufficed; bill cannot force prosecution theory/detail. |
| Exclusion/limitation of Rule 404(b) and other evidence (Hardwick) | Gov’t opposed broad bad‑acts proof as cumulative, unreliable, or hearsay. | Hardwick sought to show Maurya’s modus operandi and blame her as sole actor via multiple items (suicide note, video, witnesses). | Court: No abuse of discretion: suicide note and video excluded for trustworthiness/foundation/hearsay; limited witnesses to avoid cumulative mini‑trials. |
| Sufficiency of the evidence for convictions (Hardwick) | Gov’t presented communications, financials, and inferences showing conspiracy, wire fraud, and false statement to bank. | Hardwick argued evidence hinged on Maurya’s testimony and that he was entitled to contested distributions. | Court: Evidence sufficient on all counts; reasonable juror could find guilt beyond reasonable doubt. |
| Substantive reasonableness of 180‑month sentence (Hardwick) | Gov’t and district court emphasized egregious conduct, lack of remorse, widespread harm. | Hardwick argued court failed to give adequate weight to positive characteristics. | Court: No abuse of discretion; court considered §3553(a) factors and reasonably imposed upward variance. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Elbeblawy, 899 F.3d 925 (11th Cir. 2018) (post‑offense Guidelines cannot be applied consistent with Ex Post Facto Clause)
- Peugh v. United States, 569 U.S. 530 (2013) (Ex Post Facto Clause prohibits use of Guidelines promulgated after offense that increase range)
- United States v. Madden, 733 F.3d 1314 (11th Cir. 2013) (plain‑error framework guidance)
- Rosales‑Mireles v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 1897 (2018) (prejudice standard for Guideline errors; reasonable probability of different outcome)
- United States v. Singletary, 649 F.3d 1212 (11th Cir. 2011) (district court must issue specific factual findings to enable appellate review of restitution)
- United States v. Abraham, 386 F.3d 1033 (11th Cir. 2004) (plain error review explained)
- United States v. Davis, 854 F.3d 1276 (11th Cir. 2017) (standard for bill of particulars review)
- United States v. LaFond, 783 F.3d 1216 (11th Cir. 2015) (abuse‑of‑discretion review of evidentiary rulings)
- United States v. Richardson, 233 F.3d 1285 (11th Cir. 2000) (admissibility of summary charts under Rule 1006 requires record support)
- United States v. Steed, 548 F.3d 961 (11th Cir. 2008) (deliberate‑ignorance instruction harmless where actual‑knowledge instruction supported)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (deference and abuse‑of‑discretion standard for substantive reasonableness review)