United States v. Ralph Miller, 695 F. App'x 666

Ralph Miller was convicted in 2015 of money laundering and mail fraud (and aiding and abetting) based on insurance claims for his theater businesses; he was sentenced in 2016.
Two challenged transactions: a 2006 flood insurance claim tied to the money-laundering count and a 2009 fire/theft insurance claim tied to the mail-fraud count.
At trial the government presented evidence including conflicting statements by Miller, handwritten notations on loss summaries, multiple claimed items that were not damaged or not installed, and testimony that Miller reviewed/edited claim submissions.
Miller did not preserve a sufficiency-of-the-evidence challenge to intent to defraud at trial, so the court reviewed that argument for plain error (more deferential).
At sentencing the district judge allowed the prosecution to examine Miller during allocution six days after this Circuit decided United States v. Moreno (which prohibits prosecutorial cross-examination during allocution).
Result: conviction affirmed on sufficiency grounds; sentence vacated and case remanded for resentencing because Miller’s allocution rights were violated.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for money laundering (wire-fraud element: intent)	Miller: errors in the 2006 claim were mistakes from haste, not intent to defraud	Government: notes, inconsistent statements, and many false claimed items support intent	Affirmed — jury could rationally find intent; no miscarriage of justice
Sufficiency of evidence for mail fraud (2009 fire/theft claim: intent)	Miller: errors or agent mistakes, no intent to defraud	Government: claims for items never damaged/installed and testimony Miller edited submissions support intent	Affirmed — evidence sufficient for jury verdict
Preservation / standard of review for sufficiency claim	Miller: contends preserved via Rule 29 motion	Government: Miller’s Rule 29 did not challenge intent element; plain-error review applies	Court applied plain-error standard and still found evidence sufficient
Allocution rights at sentencing	Miller: prosecution’s questioning during allocution violated his right to allocute under Moreno	Government/District Ct: questioning was brief and on subsidiary matter; judge also questioned defendant	Vacated for resentencing — Moreno requires resentencing when allocution rights are violated; prosecution’s cross-examination violated rights

United States v. Moreno, 809 F.3d 766 (3d Cir. 2016) (prosecution may not cross-examine a defendant during allocution; violation requires resentencing)
United States v. Wolfe, 245 F.3d 257 (3d Cir. 2001) (plain-error review for unpreserved challenges)
United States v. Lore, 430 F.3d 190 (3d Cir. 2005) (standard for sufficiency review when a Rule 29 motion is made)
United States v. Gordon, 290 F.3d 539 (3d Cir. 2002) (verdict will be reversed only for a fundamental miscarriage of justice under heightened deference)
United States v. Caraballo-Rodriguez, 726 F.3d 418 (3d Cir. 2013) (discussing wire-fraud and sufficiency principles)
United States v. Hedaithy, 392 F.3d 580 (3d Cir. 2004) (elements of wire and mail fraud explained)
United States v. Sokolow, 91 F.3d 396 (3d Cir. 1996) (elements of money-laundering statute defined)
United States v. Adams, 252 F.3d 276 (3d Cir. 2001) (defendant entitled to resentencing when allocution rights violated)