United States v. Wright
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 2927
| 10th Cir. | 2017Background
- Bruce Wright, president of several LLCs owned by co‑defendant Alan Blaksley, was indicted for conspiracy to commit bank fraud and multiple counts of bank fraud based on fraudulent draw requests submitted to International Bank of Commerce for a Bentonville, AR development.
- Blaksley pleaded guilty to conspiracy and testified for the government; Wright was tried and convicted on the conspiracy count and 11 of 12 bank‑fraud counts. Jury acquitted on Count 2 and Wright was not held accountable for that draw.
- The Bank paid $1,176,490.60 on draw requests; the Presentence Investigation Report (PSR) and sentencing adopted a loss and restitution figure of $1,094,490.60 attributable to Wright (Wright did not object to the PSR or sentencing figures).
- Wright was sentenced to 33 months’ imprisonment and ordered to pay $1,094,490.60 restitution; he appealed raising instructional, Brady, and loss/restitution challenges.
- The district court denied Wright’s Rule 33 motion alleging Brady violation (government withheld a Victim Impact Statement from Blaksley’s sentencing); court found the statement cumulative and immaterial to outcome.
- On appeal, the Tenth Circuit reviewed unpreserved claims for plain error and denied relief, affirming conviction, sentence, and restitution order.
Issues
| Issue | Wright's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jury instruction on conspiracy omitted explicit "intent to defraud" element | Omission was plain error because intent to defraud is required for conspiracy to commit bank fraud | Instruction 15 (bank fraud) included intent to defraud and Instruction 14 required agreement to commit bank fraud, so intent was incorporated | No plain error; instructions read together adequately conveyed intent element |
| Court's answer to jury note about whether conviction on Count 1 required for other counts (Pinkerton liability concern) | Court's response allowing separate consideration risked convictions on Pinkerton theory without conspiracy conviction; jury could have convicted on co‑conspirator acts alone | No timely Pinkerton‑specific objection below; appellate brief raised new theory and failed to argue plain error | Waived on appeal; court declines to consider new Pinkerton argument |
| Brady claim / Motion for New Trial (Victim Impact Statement withheld) | Statement showed Blaksley obstructed Bank's recovery and would have provided additional impeachment of Blaksley, warranting a new trial | Statement was cumulative; trial record already contained substantial impeachment of Blaksley; nondisclosure not material to outcome | Denied: evidence was not material under Brady; additional impeachment would have been cumulative |
| Loss and restitution calculation (credit for foreclosure recovery) | District court erred by not reducing loss/restitution by amount the Bank recovered from foreclosure | Wright accepted PSR and did not object at sentencing; statements indicated PSR loss figure already reflected appropriate accounting; factual challenge waived | Waived/plain‑error review fails: Wright did not object to PSR/sentencing figures so cannot raise factual dispute on appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Faust, 795 F.3d 1243 (10th Cir.) (plain‑error review standards in criminal appeals)
- United States v. Robertson, 473 F.3d 1289 (10th Cir.) (conspiracy requires intent at least as great as substantive offense)
- United States v. Gallant, 537 F.3d 1202 (10th Cir.) (bank fraud requires intent to defraud)
- Pinkerton v. United States, 328 U.S. 640 (U.S. 1946) (co‑conspirator liability for reasonably foreseeable substantive offenses)
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (U.S. 1963) (prosecution must disclose materially favorable evidence)
- United States v. Cooper, 654 F.3d 1104 (10th Cir.) (impeachment evidence is Brady‑material if it would be material)
- United States v. Washington, 634 F.3d 1180 (10th Cir.) (guide to reducing loss for foreclosure recoveries in sentencing)