United States v. Thomas Greco, Jr.
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 17264
| 6th Cir. | 2013Background
- Thomas Greco, MetroHealth facilities director, was convicted after a three-week jury trial of bribery and related offenses including Hobbs Act violations, false tax returns, and mail fraud conspiracy; sentenced to 112 months and ordered to pay ~$995,000 restitution.
- Scheme: MetroHealth official John Carroll and East‑West owner Nilesh Patel funneled gifts and trips to Carroll (and later Greco) which East‑West disguised and rebilled to MetroHealth via inflated invoices/change orders.
- Patel cooperated with prosecutors, testified about gifts totaling roughly $628,000 and gave a ledger (the “Monte Carlo sheet”) tracking payments; some documentary evidence listed ~$298,216.29 in things of value to Carroll.
- District court declined parties’ competing loss figures (Gov’t: ~$2.84M; Probation: $628k; Greco: ~$70k) and estimated loss/benefit from the portion of the conspiracy involving Greco between $200k–$400k, applying a 12‑level enhancement.
- Court also applied a 2‑level obstruction enhancement based on alterations to the Monte Carlo sheet and missing receipts; Greco challenged both enhancements and the substantive reasonableness of his sentence on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Loss calculation under USSG §2C1.1(b)(2) | Gov’t: use East‑West net profit ~$2.84M for enhancement | Greco: limit to verified gifts to him (~$70k); Probation proposed $628k | Court accepted midrange: Greco’s $70k plus a substantial portion ($200k–$300k) tied to Carroll’s receipts; affirmed 12‑level enhancement (loss between $200k–$400k) |
| Use of testimony/documentary evidence vs. spoliation presumption | Greco: missing direct evidence should trigger spoliation‑type adverse inference; court should rely only on verified receipts | Gov’t: testimony and docs suffice; no spoliation (no culpable destruction by gov’t) | Court rejected spoliation analogy; found testimony and documentary evidence adequate and loss estimate within permissible range |
| Obstruction enhancement under USSG §3C1.1 | Greco: insufficient evidence he willfully altered sheet or removed receipts during the investigation | Gov’t: alterations and missing receipts (after subpoena/raid awareness) show willful obstruction | Court upheld enhancement; credited Patel’s testimony re: sheet and found missing receipts and alterations supported obstruction (deference to district court fact findings) |
| Substantive reasonableness of sentence | Greco: sentence excessive given lesser role vs. co‑defendants; loss calculation arbitrary | Gov’t: appropriate given offense seriousness and lack of cooperation | Court held sentence substantively reasonable (below guidelines range); district court considered §3553(a) factors and co‑defendant disparities properly addressed |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Gardner, 649 F.3d 437 (6th Cir.) (standard of review for sentencing facts and calculations)
- United States v. Garner, 940 F.2d 172 (6th Cir.) (loss findings entitled to deference; legal questions reviewed de novo)
- United States v. Gray, 521 F.3d 514 (6th Cir.) (abuse‑of‑discretion review for sentence reasonableness)
- United States v. Maliszewski, 161 F.3d 992 (6th Cir.) (credibility determinations are for the factfinder)
- United States v. Hamilton, 263 F.3d 645 (6th Cir.) (defendant must show loss evaluation was outside permissible computations)
- United States v. Boxley, 373 F.3d 759 (6th Cir.) (spoliation/adverse inference framework)
- Beaven v. United States Dep’t of Justice, 622 F.3d 540 (6th Cir.) (elements required for adverse inference from destroyed evidence)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (district court must adequately explain sentence to allow meaningful appellate review)