United States v. Sharp, 749 F.3d 1267

Griggs formed Disaster Restoration, Inc. (DRI) in 1986 and ran it with Sharp; DRI conducted disaster restoration with four divisions and used subcontractors for about 15% of work.
DRI generally billed insurers via estimates that used Xactimate; line-item subcontractor charges were often inflated and paired with separate actual invoices.
From 2004 onward, Griggs and Sharp directed employees to add 20–30% to subcontractor bids and to collect two invoices from subcontractors (one actual, one inflated) for insurers to view on request.
In several named jobs (Belterra, Benaglio, Cahall, Clear Creek, Evans, Jones, Justen, List, Lusman, Taddonio), DRI provided estimates with inflated subcontractor line items and sometimes supplied inflated invoices to insurers.
The jury convicted Sharp and Griggs on multiple mail fraud counts and conspiracy; Griggs received a $500,000 fine and restitution; Sharp received a smaller sentence and restitution; several other defendants were acquitted or not reached on certain counts.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for mail fraud against Sharp	Sharper: evidence showed false pretenses/representations	Sharp: line-item dollars were not false; no representation of payment rate	Yes; substantial evidence supported convictions for Counts 4,23,31,37,53 (and related counts) under mail fraud.
Materiality of omissions/misstatements	Government: line items were material; insurers relied on inflated figures	Sharp: statements were not material because price could be verified independently	Yes; omissions/misstatements sufficiently material to influence insurer decisions.
Duty to disclose required for omission-based conviction	Government: omissions in context of false representations suffice	Cochran requires a duty to disclose for nondisclosure-based fraud	No error; district court correctly refused a duty-to-disclose instruction; counts involved misleading representations with concealment.
Allen instruction after deadlock	N/A	N/A	Not an abuse of discretion; instruction appropriately encouraged reconsideration and did not coerce verdicts.
Griggs Cochran-based challenge to conviction	Cochran controls; nondisclosure theory insufficient here	District court distinguished facts; DRI’s scheme involved representations plus concealment	Sustained; Cochran distinguished and did not require reversal; convictions affirmed.

Cochran v. United States, 109 F.3d 660 (10th Cir. 1997) (duty to disclose required for nondisclosure fraud theories; affirmed reversal of wire fraud counts in that context)
Schuler v. United States, 458 F.3d 1148 (10th Cir. 2006) (elements of mail fraud and evidentiary standards; intent to defraud can be inferred)
LaVallee v. United States, 439 F.3d 670 (10th Cir. 2006) (Allen instruction analysis; coercive risk assessment in juror guidance)
Serrato v. United States, 742 F.3d 461 (10th Cir. 2014) (sufficiency of evidence de novo standard for mail fraud)
Sayad v. United States, 589 F.3d 1110 (10th Cir. 2009) (standards for substantive reasonableness review of fines under 3553(a))