United States v. Paul Spivak, 26-3029

Background

Spivak founded U.S. Lighting Group and later used reverse-merger and stock-sale arrangements involving Richard Mallion, an unlicensed securities participant, to take the company public and promote its stock. 1
A grand jury and later superseding indictments charged Spivak with conspiracy, securities fraud, wire fraud, and obstruction offenses based on 2016-2019 and 2021 stock-manipulation schemes. 2
Before trial, Spivak moved to dismiss the conspiracy and substantive fraud counts, but the district court denied those motions and set the case for phased trial. 3
After a Phase 1 jury trial, Spivak was convicted of conspiracy and two wire-fraud counts, then pleaded guilty to Phase 2 counts the next day in exchange for dismissal of remaining counts. 4
Spivak later sought acquittal, a new trial, and withdrawal of his guilty pleas, but the district court denied all post-trial motions and sentenced him to concurrent prison terms. 5
The Sixth Circuit affirmed, rejecting his challenges to the indictment, the evidence, the plea-withdrawal ruling, and the factual bases for his pleas. 6

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was the indictment sufficient for wire fraud counts 27 and 28? 7	Spivak lacked notice because the SSI barely described those counts and omitted key facts.	The SSI tracked the statute, incorporated prior allegations, and identified the wire transactions.	Yes; the indictment adequately alleged wire fraud and protected against double jeopardy. 8
Was the evidence sufficient for wire fraud convictions on counts 27 and 28? 9	Spivak said the wires were thinly linked to any fraud scheme and were not shown at trial.	The wires were tied to the stock-manipulation scheme through testimony, records, and circumstantial evidence.	Yes; a rational juror could connect both wires to the fraudulent scheme. 10
Was the evidence sufficient for the conspiracy conviction on count 1? 11	Spivak argued the restricted-stock acquittals undermined the conspiracy verdict and the free-trading proof was insufficient.	Inconsistent verdicts do not matter, and ample evidence showed an agreement to manipulate USLG stock.	Yes; the conspiracy conviction was supported by ample evidence. 12
Should Spivak have been allowed to withdraw his guilty pleas? 13	Spivak claimed a prompt, good-faith change of mind after a long trial and new counsel justified withdrawal.	The plea was knowing and voluntary, and the delay plus other factors defeated withdrawal.	No; the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying withdrawal. 14
Did the guilty pleas lack an adequate factual basis? 15	Spivak said the record did not show material omissions or a sufficient fraud nexus.	The plea agreement, prosecutor’s summary, and PSR supplied ample factual support.	No plain error; the pleas had an adequate factual basis. 16

Key Cases Cited

United States v. Grenier, 513 F.3d 632 (6th Cir. 2008) (de novo review of legal conclusions on a motion to dismiss an indictment 17)
United States v. Vichitvongsa, 819 F.3d 260 (6th Cir. 2016) (de novo review and sufficiency standard for judgment of acquittal 18)
Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (evidence is sufficient if any rational trier of fact could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt 19)
United States v. Lowe, 795 F.3d 519 (6th Cir. 2015) (circumstantial evidence alone can sustain a conviction 20)
Hamling v. United States, 418 U.S. 87 (1974) (indictment may track statutory language if it fully states the elements 21)
United States v. McAuliffe, 490 F.3d 526 (6th Cir. 2007) (indictment must allege facts and circumstances and explains intent-to-defraud requirements 22)
United States v. Reed, 77 F.3d 139 (6th Cir. 1996) (courts read indictments as a whole and in a practical sense 23)
United States v. Prince, 214 F.3d 740 (6th Cir. 2000) (wire fraud elements and equal treatment of circumstantial evidence 24)
Kousisis v. United States, 605 U.S. 114 (2025) (wire fraud covers schemes to obtain money even if the victim is not left economically worse off 25)
Ciminelli v. United States, 598 U.S. 306 (2023) (rejects the right-to-control theory of wire fraud 26)
United States v. Hunt, 521 F.3d 636 (6th Cir. 2008) (conspiracy requires an agreement and an overt act 27)
United States v. Powell, 469 U.S. 57 (1984) (inconsistent verdicts are generally not reviewable 28)
United States v. Randolph, 794 F.3d 602 (6th Cir. 2015) (inconsistent verdicts are ordinarily unreviewable 29)
United States v. Saadey, 393 F.3d 669 (6th Cir. 2005) (conspiracy focuses on the unlawful agreement, not completion of the substantive offense 30)
United States v. Faulkenberry, 614 F.3d 573 (6th Cir. 2010) (conspiracy and securities-fraud principles used to sustain the conviction and factual basis 31)