United States v. Ulloa
2014 WL 3703745
1st Cir.2014Background
- Ulloa owned Main Travel in Nashua, NH, offering travel, tax preparation and filing services.
- She was convicted on ten counts of submitting fraudulent federal tax returns under 18 U.S.C. § 287.
- Her scheme involved a refund anticipation loan program with Santa Barbara Bank and Trust to accelerate refunds.
- Gladys Pena, a Main Travel employee with prior fraud conviction, assisted and sometimes committed fraudulent acts.
- Pena testified at trial and later pled guilty, but claimed she did not commit the Ulloa charges; Ulloa defended by alleging Pena’s sole involvement.
- The district court later determined an error in limiting Rule 404(b) evidence and Ulloa appealed those rulings along with other trial issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rule 404(b) jury instruction error | Ulloa argues the error violated her right to a complete defense | Gover nment contends error was harmless and instruction reasonable | No reversible error; error was harmless under the applicable standard |
| Summary testimony by IRS Agent Mitchell | Testimony relied on inadmissible hearsay and impugned by witnesses' motives | Testimony summarized admissible facts; did not opine on intent | No abuse of discretion; testimony within permissible scope |
| Sufficiency of evidence on Count Eight | Motion for acquittal should have been granted due to lack of direct identification | Melo testified Ulloa (Magdelena) assisted him; middle name corroborates identity | Evidence viewed in light most favorable to verdict supports beyond-a-reasonable-doubt finding |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Melvin, 730 F.3d 29 (1st Cir. 2013) (harmless error standard for Rule 404(b))
- United States v. David, 940 F.2d 722 (1st Cir. 1991) (objections to Rule 404(b) may be raised by the other actor)
- United States v. Gonzalez-Sanchez, 825 F.2d 572 (1st Cir. 1987) (Rule 404(b) evidence allowed for non-defendant witnesses)
- United States v. Procopio, 88 F.3d 21 (1st Cir. 1996) (context of Rule 404(b) evidence)
- United States v. Isabel, 945 F.2d 1193 (1st Cir. 1991) (interpretation of Rule 404(b) boundaries)
- United States v. Stierhoff, 549 F.3d 19 (1st Cir. 2008) (allowing summary testimony in tax cases when within scope)
- United States v. Troy, 583 F.3d 20 (1st Cir. 2009) (standard for evaluating sufficiency on Rule 29 motions)