United States v. Raymond Jarlik Bell
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 20258
| 9th Cir. | 2014Background
- Raymond Bell used a fraudulent Form 1099‑OID scheme to claim false tax withholding and filed multiple false individual returns and amended returns; he also helped others file similar returns that yielded over $2.7 million in refund claims and caused the IRS to pay over $670,000 in error.
- Bell prepared amended returns that included Form 1099‑OIDs and Form 1096s on which he signed the title “Agent”; his son Steven filed amended returns with similar forms and handwriting features.
- Charged by indictment with 18 U.S.C. § 287 (false claims), 26 U.S.C. § 7206(2) (assisting false tax returns), 18 U.S.C. § 401(3) (criminal contempt), and 18 U.S.C. § 1341 (mail fraud), Bell moved to proceed pro se and repeatedly refused to participate or acknowledge the court’s authority.
- At trial the court announced there would be closing arguments but did not expressly prompt Bell to give one; the government made a closing argument, Bell remained silent, and the jury convicted him on all counts.
- The district court sentenced Bell to 97 months’ imprisonment and three years’ supervised release, imposing special conditions requiring substance‑abuse treatment and abstention from alcohol.
- On appeal the Ninth Circuit reviewed Bell’s claims for plain error (because he failed to object below) and addressed: (1) Sixth Amendment right to make a closing argument; (2) sufficiency of evidence that Bell assisted his son under § 7206(2); and (3) validity of the supervised‑release conditions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Bell) | Defendant's Argument (Government) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court violated the Sixth Amendment by not prompting pro se defendant to make a closing argument | Bell: District court erred by not affording him an opportunity to make a closing argument; this deprived him of right to counsel/summation | Gov: Court announced closings and did not prevent Bell from arguing; Bell voluntarily remained silent and repeatedly repudiated the court’s authority | No reversible error — no constitutional violation where defendant was not prevented from arguing and chose silence; plain‑error standard not met |
| Whether evidence was sufficient to prove Bell assisted Steven Bell in preparing fraudulent tax returns under 26 U.S.C. § 7206(2) | Bell: No evidence beyond association with his son; government failed to prove assistance or counseling | Gov: Similarity in form, use of Form 1096 with title “Agent,” matching handwritten corrections, and Bell’s established scheme support inference of assistance | Sufficient evidence for a rational jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that Bell assisted Steven; conviction affirmed |
| Whether supervised‑release conditions (mandatory treatment and alcohol abstention) were properly imposed | Bell: Conditions lack factual basis; no record evidence he abused substances and court made no findings | Gov: Probation investigation limited by Bell’s refusal to cooperate; conditions serve rehabilitative and public‑safety goals | Vacated and remanded — district court abused discretion by imposing special conditions without factual findings; court must explain reasons if it reimposes them |
| Standard of review (procedural) | Bell: N/A (did not preserve objections) | Gov: Review for plain error given lack of objections below | Court applied plain‑error review and required showing of clear/obvious error affecting substantial rights |
Key Cases Cited
- Herring v. New York, 422 U.S. 853 (1975) (criminal defendant has right to counsel’s closing summation)
- McKaskle v. Wiggins, 465 U.S. 168 (1984) (self‑represented litigant retains certain rights as his own counsel)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (standard for sufficiency of the evidence — view evidence in light most favorable to prosecution)
- United States v. Nevils, 598 F.3d 1158 (9th Cir. 2010) (en banc) (application of Jackson sufficiency standard in Ninth Circuit)
- United States v. Miguel, 338 F.3d 995 (9th Cir. 2003) (denial of opportunity to make closing argument can violate the Sixth Amendment)
- United States v. Castillo‑Marin, 684 F.3d 914 (9th Cir. 2012) (plain‑error framework elements)
- United States v. Betts, 511 F.3d 872 (9th Cir. 2007) (requiring reasonable relationship between supervised‑release conditions and statutory goals)
- United States v. Chinske, 978 F.2d 557 (9th Cir. 1992) (district court discretion to impose special supervised‑release conditions)