United States v. Peters
543 F. App'x 5
| 2d Cir. | 2013Background
- Defendant Frank E. Peters was convicted by a jury in the Western District of New York on counts including conspiracy to commit bank fraud, false statement to a bank, bank fraud, wire fraud, and mail fraud, arising from an overvaluation scheme to secure Chase Manhattan Bank money under a revolving credit line.
- District court sentenced Peters to 108 months’ imprisonment and ordered restitution of $11,988,501.36; forfeiture judgment was entered at $23,154,259.
- The government sought forfeiture and Peters appealed, challenging four aspects of the conviction and sentencing.
- Peters argued the conspiracy count was duplicitous, the evidence was insufficient on multiple counts, the district court erred in evidentiary rulings, and the loss amount calculation at sentencing was incorrect.
- The Second Circuit affirmed the judgment of conviction (except for forfeiture) and affirmed separately the forfeiture, applying standard de novo review for duplicity and sufficiency, abuse-of-discretion review for evidentiary rulings, and clear-error/de novo review for loss calculations.
- The panel held the conspiracy count was not duplicitous, found substantial evidence supporting all challenged counts, affirmed the district court’s evidentiary rulings as within discretion, and upheld the loss calculations as supported by the record.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the conspiracy count duplicitous? | United States contends single conspiracy to defraud Chase. | Peters argues multiple conspiracies were alleged. | No; the count is not duplicitous. |
| Is the evidence sufficient for Counts One, Five, Six, Seven, Eight, Nine? | United States alleges ample proof of fraud and involvement. | Peters claims insufficient link to false statements and fraud. | Yes; reasonable jurors could find the elements beyond a reasonable doubt. |
| Were evidentiary rulings correct (exclusion of evidence, prejudice, hearsay, Rule 403)? | United States asserts rulings were proper to avoid prejudice. | Peters argues several evidentiary rulings harmed his defense. | Yes; rulings within the district court’s discretion and not reversible error. |
| Did the district court properly calculate loss amount at sentencing? | United States contends loss far exceeds pleaded amount. | Peters argues estoppel and failure to exclude non-fraud losses. | Yes; loss calculation supported by record and proper application. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Aracri, 968 F.2d 1512 (2d Cir. 1992) (single conspiracy may comprise a single continuing scheme)
- United States v. Sturdivant, 244 F.3d 71 (2d Cir. 2001) (duplicitous indictment standards for conspiracy)
- United States v. Gagliardi, 506 F.3d 140 (2d Cir. 2007) (sufficiency of the evidence standard)
- United States v. Canova, 412 F.3d 331 (2d Cir. 2005) (review of loss calculations under guidelines)
- United States v. Miller, 626 F.3d 682 (2d Cir. 2010) (harmless error in evidentiary rulings; substantial rights)
- United States v. Williams, 690 F.3d 70 (2d Cir. 2012) (curative instructions can cure prejudice)