United States v. Offill
666 F.3d 168
| 4th Cir. | 2011Background
- Trial evidence centered on Offill’s role in a pump-and-dump scheme involving 9 issuances and 51 stock transactions in 2004.
- Offill advised use of Rule 504 and TAC § 139.19 to create free-tr trading stock exempt from registration.
- Offill acted as initial “accredited investor” in many issuances and helped prepare opinion letters and stock subscriptions.
- Conspirators engaged in spam campaigns and coordinated trading to inflate stock prices for illicit gains.
- Stocker transferred shares to co-conspirators; Offill allegedly never paid for shares yet profited via later sales and distributions.
- Court imposed 96 months’ imprisonment on wire fraud counts and 60 months on conspiracy, with a downward variance from the Guidelines.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of expert testimony on securities law | Offill argues experts offered improper legal conclusions. | Offill contends testimony usurped the judge’s role. | No reversible error; testimony aided jury given complex regime. |
| Single vs multiple conspiracy instruction | Offill seeks instruction on multiple conspiracies. | Offill contends multiple conspiracies flowed from broader scheme. | Single-conspiracy instruction affirmed; no prejudice. |
| Admission of lay witness opinion from co-conspirators | Stocker/Lindberg’s statements included legal conclusions. | Such testimony could be helpful lay observations. | Admissible under Rule 701; proper scope and context. |
| Admission of subsequent acts under Rule 404(b) | Evidence of later acts relevant to intent and conspiracy. | Potential prejudicial risk; must be limited. | Properly admitted under Rule 404(b) four-part test. |
| Reasonableness of sentence and gain attribution | Foreseeable co-conspirator gain should be imputable to Offill. | Only gains personally realized by Offill should count. | Confirmed; gain attributed to conspiracy reasonably foreseeable; sentence affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Adalman v. Baker, Watts & Co., 807 F.2d 359 (4th Cir. 1986) (limits expert legal conclusions to aid the jury; avoid usurping judge)
- Pinter v. Dahl, 486 U.S. 622 (1988) (clarifies securities-law expert testimony boundaries)
- McIver, 470 F.3d 550 (4th Cir. 2006) (plain-error review for unpreserved objections)
- Barile, 286 F.3d 749 (4th Cir. 2002) (expert background on complex regulatory regimes allowed)
- Bilzerian, 926 F.2d 1294 (2d Cir. 1991) (experts may explain specialized law to jurors in securities cases)
- Watson, 171 F.3d 695 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (hypothetical questions admissible; avoid testifying to defendant’s intent)
- Marx & Co. v. Diners' Club, Inc., 550 F.2d 505 (2d Cir. 1977) (use of specialized terms in testimony is permissible with caution)
- Queen, 132 F.3d 991 (4th Cir. 1997) (four-part test for Rule 404(b) admissibility)