United States v. Qualls, 613 F. App'x 25

Background

Qualls was convicted in absentia on sixteen counts including mail and wire fraud, conspiracy, and obstruction.
After fleeing at trial and later being recaptured, Qualls pled guilty to one count of failure to appear.
The cases were consolidated and he was sentenced to 210 months, consisting of 150 months on fraud counts consecutive to 60 months for bail jumping.
On appeal, Qualls argues Confrontation Clause error from testimony about foreign business records, and that his sentence was procedurally and substantively unreasonable.
The government argued fugitive disentitlement barred review, but the court declined to apply the doctrine.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Confrontation Clause and foreign records	Qualls contends testimony about a business-records certification violated Confrontation Clause rights.	Qualls asserts the records or their certification were testimonial and unauthenticated without live testimony.	No reversible error; any error would be harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
Ex Post Facto and the one-book rule	Qualls argues applying the 2013 Guidelines to all counts violated the Ex Post Facto Clause.	Kumar controls; no Ex Post Facto violation in applying one-book rule across pre- and post-publication offenses.	No Ex Post Facto violation; one-book rule applied properly.
Fatico hearing for diminished capacity	District court erred by not holding a Fatico hearing to assess delusional-disorder–related diminished capacity.	Defendant contends the court should have conducted a live evidentiary hearing.	Court did not abuse discretion; substantial opportunity to contest evidence sufficed.
Downward departure for diminished capacity	Court should have downwardly departed under § 5K2.13 based on diminished capacity.	No adequate causal link between current mental illness and prior offenses; departure not warranted.	District court properly declined; no error in its factual and legal analysis.
Sentencing disparity considerations	Court should consider nationwide disparities in white-collar sentences.	Disparities allowed but not warranted under circumstances; district court weighed factors appropriately.	Court acted within its discretion; not warranted to depart downward or alter sentence.

Key Cases Cited

Jass, 569 F.3d 47 (2d Cir. 2009) (Confrontation Clause reviewed de novo with harmless-error standard)
Bullcoming v. New Mexico, 131 S. Ct. 2705 (2011) (testimonial nature of out-of-court statements; confrontation)
Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 (2009) (business records as non-testimonial when created for affairs, not trial)
James, 712 F.3d 79 (2d Cir. 2013) (testimonial nature and harmless-error framework for Confrontation Clause)
Kumar, 617 F.3d 612 (2d Cir. 2010) (one-book rule and Ex Post Facto considerations)
Peugh, 133 S. Ct. 2072 (2013) (retrospective guideline application and Ex Post Facto concerns)
Ortega-Rodriguez v. United States, 507 U.S. 234 (1993) (due process and appellate disentitlement considerations)
Morgan, 254 F.3d 424 (2d Cir. 2001) (fugitive disentitlement doctrine—discretionary, requires nexus)
Valdez, 426 F.3d 178 (2d Cir. 2005) (standard for reviewing downward departures; factual findings)
Slevin, 106 F.3d 1086 (2d Cir. 1996) (scope of evidence and sentencing considerations)
Bonventre, 720 F.3d 126 (2d Cir. 2013) (live testimony at sentencing not always required)
Florez, 447 F.3d 145 (2d Cir. 2006) (§3553(a) factor consideration and sentencing discretion)
Morrison, 153 F.3d 34 (2d Cir. 1998) (defendant's mental state evidence and sentencing)
Yeley-Davis, 632 F.3d 673 (10th Cir. 2011) (challenge to admissibility of foreign records and testimonial concerns)