united states v. lyons, 1st cir. (2014)

7/26/2019 United States v. Lyons, 1st Cir. (2014)

1/55

United States Court of AppealsFor the First Circuit

Nos. 12- 1835 12- 1858

UNI TED STATES OF AMERI CA,

Appel l ee,

v.

TODD LYONSand DANI EL EREMI AN,

Def endant s, Appel l ant s.

APPEALS FROM THE UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURTFOR THE DI STRI CT OF MASSACHUSETTS

[ Hon. Pat t i B. Sar i s, U. S. Di st r i ct J udge]

Bef or e

Lynch, Chi ef J udge,Thompson and Kayat t a, Ci r cui t J udges.

Pet er Char l es Horst mann, wi t h whom Par t r i dge, Ankner &Hor st mann, LLP was on br i ef , f or appel l ant Todd Lyons.

J uan Char di et , wi t h whomChar di et Law P. C. was on br i ef ,f or appel l ant Dani el Er emi an.

J ohn M. Pel l et t i er i , At t or ney, Appel l at e Sect i on,Cr i mi nal Di vi si on, U. S. Depar t ment of J ust i ce, wi t h whom Myt hi l iRaman, Act i ng Assi st ant At t or ney Gener al , Deni s J . McI ner ney,Act i ng Deput y Assi st ant At t or ney General , Car men M. Or t i z, Uni t edSt at es At t or ney, and Rober t A. Fi sher , Mar y Bet h Mur r ane, and Fr ed

W. Wyshak, Assi st ant U. S. At t or neys, wer e on br i ef , f or appel l ee.

J anuar y 17, 2014


2/55

KAYATTA, Circuit Judge. Todd Lyons and Dani el Eremi an

wor ked f or Spor t s Of f Shor e ( SOS) , a gambl i ng busi ness based i n

Ant i gua. Af t er a wi de- r angi ng i nvest i gat i on by f eder al and st at e

l aw enf orcement of SOS and i t s empl oyees and agent s, and a l engt hy

t r i al , a j ur y convi ct ed bot h Lyons and Er emi an on t wo count s under

t he Wi r e Act , 18 U. S. C. 1084, t wo count s under RI CO, 18 U. S. C.

1962( c) and 1962( d) , and one count under 18 U. S. C. 1955 f or

conduct i ng an i l l egal gambl i ng busi ness. Lyons was separ at el y

convi ct ed on anot her ei ght een count s. I n t hi s di r ect appeal f r om

t hei r convi ct i ons and sent ences, Lyons and Er emi an ar gue t hat : ( 1)

t he di st r i ct cour t i mpr oper l y deni ed t hema saf e har bor i nst r uct i on

on t he gover nment ' s char ges t hat t hey vi ol at ed t he Wi r e Act ; ( 2)

t he Wi r e Act does not appl y to t he i nt er net ; ( 3) t he gover nment di d

not pr ove they had t he necessary mens r ea t o vi ol ate t he Wi r e Act ;

( 4) t hei r convi ct i ons i nvol ved an i nappr opr i at e ext r at er r i t or i al

appl i cat i on of t he Wi r e Act ; ( 5) t hei r Wi r e Act convi ct i ons shoul d

be over t ur ned because t he government was r equi r ed but f ai l ed t o

pr ove t hat al l r el evant bet s wer e on spor t i ng event s; and ( 6) t he

di st r i ct cour t i mpr oper l y admi t t ed i nt o evi dence a di r ect or y of SOS

agent s.

Lyons separ at el y ar gues t hat : ( 7) t he di st r i ct cour t

shoul d have suppr essed evi dence der i ved f r omwi r et aps of hi s phone

conver sat i ons; ( 8) t he di st r i ct cour t shoul d have suppr essed

evi dence obt ai ned pur suant t o sear ch war r ant s f or hi s home, car ,

-2-


3/55

and per son; ( 9) t her e was i nsuf f i ci ent evi dence t o convi ct hi m of

money l aunder i ng because t he government ' s evi dence di d not

di st i ngui sh bet ween "pr oceeds" and "pr of i t s" of i l l egal gambl i ng;

( 10) t her e was i nsuf f i ci ent evi dence t o convi ct hi m of vi ol at i ng

t he Tr avel Act , 18 U. S. C. 1952, f or t he same r eason; ( 11) t he

absence of f i nal i mpl ement i ng r egul at i ons pr ecl uded hi s convi ct i ons

f or vi ol at i ng t he Unl awf ul I nt er net Gambl i ng Enf or cement Act of

2006 ( "UI GEA") , 31 U. S. C. 5361- 67; and ( 12) t he pr osecut i on

r ef er r ed at t r i al t o hi s deci s i on not t o t est i f y, vi ol at i ng hi s

Fi f t h Amendment r i ght agai nst sel f - i ncr i mi nat i on.

Er emi an separ at el y ar gues t hat : ( 13) venue di d not l i e i n

Massachuset t s; ( 14) t her e was i nsuf f i ci ent evi dence t o convi ct hi m

of r acket eer i ng; and ( 15) i nst r uct i ng t he j ur y on Fl or i da l aw

const i t ut ed a const r uct i ve amendment of t he i ndi ct ment . Fi nal l y,

Lyons and Er emi an each chal l enges hi s puni shment , argui ng that ( 16)

hi s pr i son sent ence and t he f or f ei t ur e j udgment wer e unr easonabl e

and vi ol at ed t he Ei ght h Amendment .

I n t he r emai nder of t hi s opi ni on, we addr ess t hese

si xteen ar gument s i n t he or der l i st ed, above. For t he r easons

st at ed, we af f i r m t he convi ct i ons and sent ences, t hough we af f i r m

Lyons' s Wi r e Act convi ct i ons i n one l i mi t ed r espect on a basi s

di f f er ent f r om t hat empl oyed by t he di st r i ct cour t .

-3-


4/55

I. Background

SOS was a bookmaki ng busi ness f ounded i n 1996 by Rober t

Er emi an, Dani el Er emi an' s br ot her . 1 SOS cent er ed i t s oper at i ons i n

Ant i gua at l east i n part because some f orms of bookmaki ng ar e l egal

t here. Many of SOS' s cust omers, however , were i n t he U. S. and SOS

t ook bet s by phone or over t he i nt er net f r om t he U. S. Most SOS

cust omer s bet on t eam spor t s, but ot her s bet on hor se raci ng or on

casi no games pl ayed on t he SOS websi t e. SOS al l owed bet t ors t o

pl ace bet s agai nst f unds pl aced on deposi t wi t h SOS, or on cr edi t .

Ant i guan r egul at or y l aw al l owed t he f ormer but , at l east bet ween

2001 and 2007, pr ohi bi t ed bet t i ng on cr edi t .

A bet t or who wi shed t o pl ace bets on cr edi t wi t h SOS

r ecei ved a password and a cust omer code f or pl aci ng bet s t hr ough

t he i nt ernet or by phone. SOS empl oyed agent s i n t he Uni t ed

St at es, i ncl udi ng Er emi an and Todd Lyons, t o "set t l e up" wi t h

cr edi t bet t or s, col l ect i ng l osses f r om l oser s and maki ng payment s

t o wi nner s. These agent s met wi t h bet t or s i n per son i n publ i c

pl aces and pr i mar i l y conduct ed t r ansact i ons i n cash or by r ecei vi ng

checks. Each agent managed a group of r egul ar cust omers and

r ecei ved as a commi ssi on a per cent age of t hose cust omer s' l osses.

Some agent s al so empl oyed sub- agent s who managed t hei r own

1 Thi s opi ni on wi l l al ways ref er t o Rober t Er emi an by hi sf ul l name. "Er emi an, " on i t s own, wi l l be used t o r ef er t o Dani elEr emi an.

-4-


5/55

cust omers and shar ed commi ss i ons wi t h t he agent s under whom t hey

wor ked.

Af t er deduct i ng t hei r commi ssi ons f r omt he money l ef t over

once cust omer s set t l ed up, t he agent s sent t he bal ance t o SOS i n

Ant i gua. Agent s of t en sent t hi s bal ance i n cash, somet i mes usi ng

a "si x pack, " a package cont ai ni ng t hr ee bundl es of $2, 000. SOS

agent s al so car r i ed cash t o Ant i gua i n per son. Agent s al so

t r ansf er r ed or caused t hei r cust omer s t o t r ansf er f unds t o Ant i gua

by check or wi r e t r ansf er .

Dani el Er emi an pl ayed an i mport ant r ol e i n t he SOS

oper at i on f r om i t s i ncept i on. He hel ped hi s br ot her est abl i sh t he

SOS of f i ce i n Ant i gua, t r ai ni ng Ant i guan empl oyees about how t o

answer t he phone and t ake bets. Af t er SOS was est abl i shed, Er emi an

r etur ned t o t he Uni t ed St ates where he worked as an SOS agent . He

r ecr ui t ed cust omer s i n Fl or i da. He al so empl oyed at l east t hr ee

sub- agent s. Li ke ot her SOS agent s, Er emi an pr ovi ded bet t or s wi t h

t he i nf or mat i on needed t o pl ace bet s wi t h SOS on cr edi t and set t l ed

up wi t h cust omer s, ei t her i n- per son or t hr ough hi s sub- agent s. On

at l east one occasi on, Er emi an al so col l ect ed f unds f r om anot her

agent on behal f of SOS.

Todd Lyons came t o SOS l at er t han Eremi an, but ended up

pl ayi ng a l ar ger r ol e i n SOS' s Massachuset t s oper at i on t han Er emi an

pl ayed i n Fl or i da. Li ke many agent s, Lyons was a bet t or wi t h SOS

bef or e he became an agent . But at some poi nt bet ween 1997 and 2000

-5-


6/55

Lyons became an SOS agent . Li ke ot her SOS agent s, Lyons pr ovi ded

cust omers wi t h t he i nf ormat i on t hey needed t o make bets. He al so

col l ect ed l osses and di st r i but ed wi nni ngs. Lyons had at l east one

sub- agent . I n addi t i on t o wor ki ng as an agent , Lyons al so served

as " t he bank" f or SOS i n Massachuset t s, col l ect i ng money f r om, and

di sbur si ng i t t o, ot her agent s. St ar t i ng i n 2000, SOS pai d Lyons

a sal ar y f or t hi s manager i al r ol e.

Lyons f i r st dr ew t he at t ent i on of Massachuset t s st at e

pol i ce i nvest i gat i ng an i l l egal bookmaker i n Bost on. Pol i ce and

pr osecut or s sought and r ecei ved a wi r et ap of Lyons' s cel l phone.

Thi s wi r et ap l ed t o war r ant s f or searches of Lyons' s home, car , and

person conduct ed i n J anuary, 2006. The sear ch of Lyons' s home

uncovered r ecor ds of bets and cash di sbur sement s, and a subst ant i al

quant i t y of cash, i ncl udi ng $34, 318 i n a br i ef case and $50, 000 i n

t he l eg of a pai r of pant s i n a dr awer . The Massachuset t s St at e

Pol i ce cont i nued t o i nvest i gat e Lyons unt i l 2009, when t hey

execut ed a second sear ch war r ant f or hi s house, f i ndi ng $93, 800

hi dden above t wo cei l i ng t i l es and mor e gambl i ng r ecor ds. A

f eder al gr and j ur y i ndi ct ed Lyons i n May, 2010. A super sedi ng

i ndi ct ment was f i l ed i n August , 2010, chargi ng Dani el Er emi an,

Rober t Er emi an, Lyons, and Ri char d Sul l i van, another i mpor t ant

f i gur e i n SOS. As of Mar ch 1, 2012, Rober t Er emi an and Sul l i van

wer e f ugi t i ves.

-6-


7/55

II. Analysis

We f i r st addr ess Lyons' s and Eremi an' s common chal l enges

t o t hei r convi ct i ons, t hen t hei r i ndi vi dual chal l enges t o t hei r

convi ct i ons, and f i nal l y t hei r chal l enges t o t hei r sent ences.

1. The Safe Harbor Provision of the Wire Act

Bot h Lyons and Er emi an wer e convi ct ed on t wo counts of

vi ol at i ng t he Wi r e Act by t r ansmi t t i ng bet s or bet t i ng i nf or mat i on

or assi st i ng t he t r ansmi ssi on of bet s over a wi r e communi cat i on

f aci l i t y. One count char ged t hemwi t h vi ol at i ng t he Wi r e Act usi ng

t el ephones, t he ot her wi t h vi ol at i ng t he Wi r e Act usi ng t he

i nt er net . I n a chal l enge di r ect ed at bot h count s, t hey ar gue t hat

t he di st r i ct cour t er r ed by f ai l i ng t o i nst r uct t he j ur y on t he

saf e har bor pr ovi si on of t he Wi r e Act , 18 U. S. C. 1084( b) , whi ch

exempt s f r om l i abi l i t y cer t ai n communi cat i ons assi st i ng i n t he

t r ansmi ss i on of bet s bet ween pl aces wher e bet t i ng on spor t s i s

l egal .

We r evi ew pr eserved cl ai ms of i nst r uct i onal er r or de

novo. Uni t ed St at es v. Bai r d, 712 F. 3d 623, 627- 28 ( 1st Ci r .

2013) . I f t hi s de novo r evi ew concl udes t hat " t he evi dence at

t r i al , t aken i n t he def endant ' s f avor , was suf f i ci ent t o suppor t

hi s r equest ed i nst r uct i on, t hen we move t o a t hr ee- par t t est t o

deci de whet her t he di st r i ct cour t ' s r ef usal t o gi ve t he i nst r uct i on

const i t ut es r ever si bl e er r or . " I d at 628. Rever sal i s onl y

appr opr i at e i f t he r equest ed i nst r uct i on was " ( 1) subst ant i vel y

-7-


8/55

cor r ect as a mat t er of l aw, ( 2) not subst ant i al l y cover ed by t he

char ge as r ender ed, and ( 3) i nt egr al t o an i mpor t ant poi nt i n t he

case so t hat t he omi ssi on of t he i nst r uct i on ser i ousl y i mpai r ed t he

def endant ' s abi l i t y t o pr esent hi s def ense. " I d.

For t he f ol l owi ng r easons, we f i nd t hat Er emi an was not

ent i t l ed t o an i nst r uct i on on t he saf e har bor pr ovi si on, and t hat

i t makes no di f f erence whether Lyons was ent i t l ed to such an

i nstr uct i on.

a. Statutory Background

The Wi r e Act has t wo provi si ons r el evant t o Lyons and

Er emi an. Sect i on 1084( a) creat es cr i mi nal l i abi l i t y:

Whoever bei ng engaged i n t he busi ness of bet t i ng orwager i ng knowi ngl y uses a wi r e communi cat i on f aci l i t y f ort he t r ansmi ssi on i n i nt er st at e or f or ei gn commer ce ofbet s or wager s or i nf or mat i on assi st i ng i n t he pl aci ng ofbet s or wager s on any spor t i ng event or cont est , or f ort he t r ansmi ssi on of a wi r e communi cat i on whi ch ent i t l est he reci pi ent t o r ecei ve money or cr edi t as a r esul t of

bet s or wager s, or f or i nf or mat i on assi st i ng i n t hepl aci ng of bet s or wager s, shal l be f i ned under t hi st i t l e or i mpr i soned not mor e than t wo year s, or bot h.

Sect i on 1084( b) cr eat es an except i on t o sect i on 1084( a) appl i cabl e

t o cer t ai n t r ansmi ssi ons of i nf or mat i on assi st i ng i n t he pl aci ng of

bet s:

Not hi ng i n t hi s sect i on shal l be const r ued t o pr event

. . . t he t r ansmi ssi on of i nf or mat i on assi st i ng i n t hepl aci ng of bet s or wager s on a spor t i ng event or cont estf r om a St at e or f or ei gn count r y wher e bet t i ng on t hatspor t i ng event or cont est i s l egal i nt o a St at e orf or ei gn count r y i n whi ch such bet t i ng i s l egal .

-8-


9/55

Two aspect s of t hi s saf e har bor provi si on ar e per t i nent

t o our anal ysi s i n t hi s case. Fi r st , t he saf e har bor pr ovi si on

onl y appl i es when gambl i ng on t he event s i n quest i on i s l egal i n

bot h t he sendi ng and r ecei vi ng j ur i sdi ct i on. Thus, f or exampl e, i f

New Yor k al l ows bet t i ng on horses at r ace t r acks i n New Yor k, and

i f Nevada al l ows bet t i ng i n Nevada on t he resul t s of New Yor k hor se

r aces, t hen i nf ormat i on may be wi r ed f r om New Yor k t o Nevada t o

assi st i n t he bet t i ng i n Nevada wi t hout vi ol at i ng t he st at ut e. See

H. R. Rep. No. 87- 967, r epr i nt ed i n 1961 U. S. C. C. A. N. 2631, 2632- 33.

Second, t he saf e har bor pr ovi si on onl y appl i es t o t he t r ansmi ssi on

of "i nf or mat i on assi st i ng i n t he pl aci ng of bet s. " The saf e har bor

pr ovi s i on does not exempt f r om l i abi l i t y t he i nt er stat e

t r ansmi ss i on of bets t hemsel ves. See Uni t ed St ates v. McDonough,

835 F. 2d 1103, 1104- 05 ( 5t h Ci r . 1988) ; Uni t ed St at es v. Bal a, 489

F. 3d 334, 342 ( 8t h Ci r . 2007) .

I n t hi s manner , t he Wi r e Act pr ohi bi t s i nt er st at e

gambl i ng wi t hout cr i mi nal i zi ng l awf ul i nt r ast at e gambl i ng or

pr ohi bi t i ng t he t r ansmi ssi on of dat a needed t o enabl e i nt r ast at e

gambl i ng on event s hel d i n ot her st at es i f gambl i ng i n bot h st at es

on such event s i s l awf ul .

b. Applying Section 1084(b) to Lyons and Eremian

Lyons and Er emi an sought pr otect i on under

sect i on 1084( b) ' s saf e har bor pr ovi si on i n t wo ways: t hey ar gued

t hat t hey wer e ent i t l ed t o an acqui t t al as a mat t er of l aw because

-9-


10/55

al l of t hei r char ged Wi r e Act vi ol at i ons f el l wi t hi n t he saf e

har bor pr ovi si on; and t hey ar gued i n t he al t er nat i ve t hat , at t he

ver y l east , t he di st r i ct cour t shoul d have i nst r uct ed t he j ur y on

t he saf e har bor pr ovi si on because some of t hei r act i vi t i es f el l

wi t hi n i t .

Er emi an' s ef f or t t o r el y on t he saf e har bor pr ovi si on i n

t hi s manner i s a non- st art er . Many t r ansmi ssi ons he caused wer e

f r om Fl or i da. He advances no argument t hat t he bet s made by SOS

bet t or s i n Fl or i da wer e l egal i n Fl or i da. Nor coul d he. See Fl a.

St at . 849. 14. Si mpl y put , t her e was no evi dence at al l t o

suppor t hi s ar gument t hat t he saf e har bor pr ovi si on coul d appl y t o

hi m and t her ef or e no er r or i n denyi ng hi m an i nst r uct i on on i t .

Cf . Bai r d, 712 F. 3d at 627. A f or t i or i , i t f ol l ows that t he saf e

har bor di d not r ender i nsuf f i ci ent t he evi dence mar shal ed agai nst

hi m.

Lyons had a bet t er pot ent i al ar gument r egar di ng t he saf e

har bor because i t i s not cl ear t hat ei t her Massachuset t s or Ant i gua

makes spor t s bet t i ng i l l egal . Bot h Massachuset t s and Ant i gua l aw

pl ace l i mi t s on gambl i ng, but ot her wi se al l ow i t . Ant i gua appear s

t o gener al l y al l ow bet s on spor t i ng event s, al t hough bet s may not

be pl aced on cr edi t . Massachuset t s l aw cr i mi nal i zes bet t i ng by

t el ephone. Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 271, 17A. I t al so cr i mi nal i zes

t he oper at i on and pat r oni zi ng of gami ng houses, i d. at 5, and t he

manuf act ur e and sal e of gami ng devi ces. I d. at 5A. The

-10-


11/55

gover nment , t hough, poi nt s t o no Massachuset t s l aw ef f ect i vel y

cr i mi nal i zi ng bet t i ng on spor t i ng event s gener al l y. The gover nment

never t hel ess argues t hat t he bet s pl aced f r om Massachuset t s t o

Ant i gua cannot be wi t hi n t he saf e har bor pr ovi si on because t hey

vi ol at ed t he Ant i guan gami ng r egul at i ons. Lyons count er s t hat a

bet i s " l egal " f or t he pur poses of t he Wi r e Act as l ong as "bet t i ng

on t hat spor t i ng event . . . i s l egal , " 18 U. S. C. 1084( b) , i n t he

j ur i sdi ct i on. Cf . Bal a, 489 F. 3d at 341- 42 ( 8th Ci r . 2007)

( hol di ng that non- compl i ance wi t h st at ut or y r equi r ement t hat

par i mut uel bet t i ng busi nesses donat e a por t i on of t hei r pr oceeds t o

char i t y di d not mean t hat bet t i ng at t hose busi ness was " i l l egal "

f or pur poses of sect i on 1084( b) ) . But cf . Uni t ed St at es v. Cohen,

260 F. 3d 68, 73- 74 ( 2d Ci r . 2001) ( hol di ng t hat spor t s bet t i ng was

" i l l egal " under sect i on 1084( b) where i t was not a cr i me but was

gener al l y pr ohi bi t ed by l aw and t he st at e const i t ut i on) .

We need not r esol ve t hi s di sput e. Speci f i cal l y, i n

Lyons' s case, we need not deci de i f some of t he act i vi t y f or whi ch

he was i ndi ct ed f el l wi t hi n t he saf e har bor . Rat her , because t he

evi dence was over whel mi ng t hat he al so engaged i n other act i vi t y

cl ear l y out si de t he saf e har bor , f or whi ch he was i ndi ct ed under

t he same count , hi s ar gument s based on t he saf e harbor must f ai l .

Wher e a j ur y i s pr oper l y i nst r uct ed on t wo t heor i es of gui l t , one

of whi ch i s l at er det er mi ned t o be i nval i d, "we can af f i r m t he

convi ct i on onl y i f we concl ude ' beyond a r easonabl e doubt ' t hat

-11-


12/55

' t he j ur y ver di ct woul d have been t he same absent t he er r or . ' "

Uni t ed St ates v. Zhen Zhou Wu, 711 F. 3d 1, 30 ( 1st Ci r . 2013)

( quot i ng Neder v. Uni t ed St at es, 527 U. S. 1, 17 ( 1999) ) . Her e,

gi ven t he over whel mi ng evi dence of Lyons' s gui l t under an ai di ng

and abet t i ng t heor y, t he di st r i ct cour t ' s ref usal t o i nst r uct t he

j ury on t he saf e har bor def ense ar guabl y appl i cabl e t o some of

Lyons' s act s pr ovi des no cause f or r ever sal . A f or t i or i , hi s

suf f i ci ency ar gument based on t he saf e har bor must si mi l ar l y f ai l .

The i ndi ct ment on t he t wo Wi r e Act counts char ged Lyons

not j ust wi t h t r ansmi t t i ng i nf or mat i on assi st i ng i n t he pl aci ng of

bet s, but al so wi t h ai di ng and abet t i ng t he use of a wi r e

communi cat i on f aci l i t y f or t he t r ansmi ssi on of bet s. I t al l eged

t hat "Er emi an . . . Lyons, and ot her s unknown t o the gr and j ur y,

each ai di ng and abet t i ng t he ot her , bei ng engaged i n t he busi ness

of bet t i ng and wager i ng, knowi ngl y used a wi r e communi cat i on

f aci l i t y f or t he t r ansmi ssi on i n i nt er st at e and f or ei gn commer ce of

bet s and wager s . . . on any spor t i ng event or cont est . " Recei vi ng

bet s i s "use" of a wi r e communi cat i on f aci l i t y. See Sagansky v.

Uni t ed St at es, 358 F. 2d 195, 200 ( 1st Ci r . 1966) . Under 18 U. S. C.

2( a) " [ w] hoever commi t s an of f ense agai nst t he Uni t ed St at es or

ai ds, abet s, counsel s, commands, i nduces or pr ocur es i t s

commi ssi on, i s puni shabl e as a pr i nci pal . " Ther ef or e, i f Lyons

ai ded and abet t ed t he recei pt of bet s by SOS he f al l s out si de the

pr ot ect i on of t he saf e har bor pr ovi si on.

-12-


13/55

An ai der and abet t or i s puni shabl e as a pr i nci pal i f ,

f i r st , someone el se act ual l y commi t t ed t he of f ense and, second, t he

ai der and abet t or "became associ ated wi t h t he endeavor and took

par t i n i t , i nt endi ng t o ensur e i t s success. " Uni t ed St at es v.

Spi nney, 65 F. 3d 231, 235 ( 1st Ci r . 1995) . "The cent r al

r equi r ement of t he second el ement i s ' a showi ng t hat t he def endant

consci ousl y shar ed t he pr i nci pal ' s knowl edge of t he under l yi ng

cri mi nal act , and i nt ended t o hel p t he pr i nci pal . ' " I d. ( quot i ng

Uni t ed St at es v. Tayl or , 54 F. 3d 967, 975 ( 1st Ci r . 1995) ) . Lyons

was not r equi r ed t o know t he exact detai l s of each i ndi vi dual

t r ansact i on t o be l i abl e as an ai der and abet t or - - i t i s suf f i ci ent

t hat he knew of SOS' s r ecei pt of bets and knowi ngl y hel ped i t

cont i nue t o r ecei ve t hem. See Uni t ed St ates v. Davi s, 717 F. 3d 28,

33 ( 1st Ci r . 2013) ( " [ A] cul pabl e ai der and abet t or need not

per f or mt he subj ect of f ense, be pr esent when i t i s per f or med, or be

awar e of t he det ai l s of i t s execut i on. " ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks

omi t t ed) ) ; Uni t ed St at es v. Her nandez, 218 F. 3d 58, 65 ( 1st Ci r .

2000) ( knowl edge of al l det ai l s of a dr ug t r ansact i on not needed

f or ai di ng and abet t i ng l i abi l i t y) .

Any r easonabl e j ur y woul d necessar i l y have f ound beyond

a r easonabl e doubt t hat Lyons ai ded and abet t ed SOS' s r ecei pt of

i nt er - j ur i sdi ct i onal bet s. The cor e mi ssi on of SOS was t o engage

i n t he busi ness of i nt er st at e gambl i ng on, among ot her t hi ngs,

spor t i ng event s, by causi ng and r ecei vi ng t he i nt er st at e and

-13-


14/55

f or ei gn t r ansmi ssi on of wager s. I t coul d not do t hi s wi t hout

r ecei vi ng bet s. Lyons' s ef f or t s f or over a decade wer e dedi cat ed

t o f aci l i t at i ng t hat busi ness. Lyons handl ed mi l l i ons of dol l ar s

i n pr oceeds f r om SOS agent s i n Massachuset t s. He f unct i oned as

SOS' s "bank" i n t he st at e, col l ecti ng bet t or s' l osses, di st r i but i ng

wi nni ngs, and col l ect i ng money f r om and di st r i but i ng i t t o SOS

agent s. SOS pai d hi m a sal ar y f or t hi s r ol e. SOS woul d have

r ecei ved no bet s had i t l acked a way to set t l e up wi t h bet t or s and

so Lyons' r ol e was cr i t i cal t o i t s recei pt of bet s.

Li ke ot her agent s Lyons al so ai ded and abet t ed t he

r ecei pt of bet s by SOS by f unct i oni ng as an agent . Wi t nesses

descr i bed Lyons as t he agent who pr ovi ded t hemwi t h t he i nf ormat i on

t hey needed t o pl ace bet s wi t h SOS, col l ect ed l osses f r omt hem, and

di st r i but ed wi nni ngs. He al so speci f i cal l y di r ect ed at l east one

bet t or t o make payment s t o SOS by wi r e t r ansf er t o set t l e up bets

pl aced wi t h SOS. Per haps t he best evi dence t hat Lyons i nt ended t o

ensure SOS' s success by t hese act i ons, besi des t he act i ons

t hemsel ves, i s t hat he recei ved a commi ssi on of 50 per cent of t he

l osses of t he bet t or s he per sonal l y managed. Lyons was a cr i t i cal

par t of SOS' s oper at i on and t her eby demonst r ated a cl ear i nt ent t o

f ur t her SOS' s busi ness of r ecei vi ng i l l egal i nt er - j ur i sdi cti onal

spor t s bet s by phone and over t he i nt er net .

Nor coul d Lyons avoi d l i abi l i t y f or ai di ng and abet t i ng

t he commi ss i on of a cr i me even i f he coul d show t hat some of t he

-14-


15/55

char ged conduct coul d have been per f or med l awf ul l y. I t i s

per f ect l y l egal t o dr i ve a f r i end t o t he bank, but doi ng so wi t h an

i nt ent t o hel p hi m r ob i t i s a cr i me. See Spi nney, 65 F. 3d at 235

( 1st Ci r . 1995) . Si mi l ar l y, accompanyi ng a f r i end t o a busi ness

meet i ng i s not a cr i me, but doi ng so wi t h an i nt ent t o f ur t her t he

sal e of cocai ne i s. See Uni t ed St at es v. Paone, 758 F. 2d 774, 776

( 1st Ci r . 1985) . And whi l e worki ng as a cr ewman on a boat i s

l egal , doi ng so wi t h an i nt ent t o ai d i t s t r anspor t at i on of

mar i j uana i s not . See Uni t ed St at es v. Cuevas- Esqui vel , 905 F. 2d

510, 515 ( 1st Ci r . 1990) . Many of Lyons' s act i ons, mor eover ,

vi ol at ed ot her cr i mi nal st at ut es as t he ot her count s he was

convi ct ed of show, and so t hi s i s not even a si t uat i on i n whi ch

ai di ng and abet t i ng l i abi l i t y t r ansf or ms ot her wi se pur el y l awf ul

conduct i nt o cr i mi nal act i on. The t wo speci f i c payment s t o SOS

Lyons was convi ct ed of causi ng, f or exampl e, f or med t he basi s of

Lyons' s money l aunder i ng convi ct i on we af f i r m bel ow. Gi ven t he

cl ear evi dence of Lyons' s i nt ent t o f ur t her SOS' s r ecei pt of bet s

i n vi ol at i on of t he Wi r e Act we t her ef or e have no t r oubl e af f i r mi ng

hi s convi ct i on on t hi s basi s.

2. The Internet and the Wire Act

Lyons and Er emi an ar gue f or t he f i r st t i me on appeal t hat

t hey shoul d have been gr ant ed an acqui t t al as a mat t er of l aw on

t he Wi r e Act count t hat was based on the t r ansmi ss i on of

i nf or mat i on over t he i nt er net because, t hey cl ai m, t he i nt er net i s

-15-


16/55

not a "wi r e communi cat i on f aci l i t y. " They di d not r ai se t hi s

speci f i c ar gument i n t hei r post - t r i al mot i on f or acqui t t al , i n

whi ch t hey obj ect ed gener al l y t o t he suf f i ci ency of t he evi dence,

but al so made cer t ai n ot her speci f i c obj ect i ons. Nor mal l y, a

gener al obj ect i on t o t he suf f i ci ency of t he evi dence pr eser ves al l

possi bl e suf f i ci ency ar gument s, but we have al so suggest ed t hat a

def endant who r ai ses onl y speci f i c suf f i ci ency ar gument s wai ves al l

t hose he does not make. See Uni t ed St ates v. Marst on, 694 F. 3d

131, 134 ( 1st Ci r . 2012) ( col l ect i ng cases f or bot h pr oposi t i ons) .

We have not deci ded what happens when a general suf f i ci ency

obj ect i on i s accompani ed by speci f i c obj ect i ons, but we have

suggest ed, al bei t i n di ct um, t hat such a pr act i ce pr eser ves al l

possi bl e obj ecti ons because: "[ i ] t i s hel pf ul t o t he t r i al j udge t o

have speci f i c concerns expl ai ned even where a general mot i on i s

made; and to penal i ze t he gi vi ng of exampl es, whi ch mi ght be

under st ood as abandoni ng al l ot her gr ounds, di scour ages def ense

counsel f r om doi ng so and al so cr eat es a t r ap f or t he unwar y

def ense l awyer . " I d. at 135. We need not deci de t he i ssue,

however , because, what ever t he st andar d of r evi ew, t he suf f i ci ency

chal l enge f ai l s.

The suf f i ci ency chal l enge f ai l s because t he i nter net i s

an "i nst r ument al i t [ y] . . . used or usef ul i n t he t r ansmi ssi on of

wr i t i ngs, si gns, pi ct ur es, and sounds of al l ki nds by ai d of wi r e,

cabl e, or ot her l i ke connect i on bet ween t he poi nt s of or i gi n and

-16-


17/55

r ecept i on of such t r ansmi ssi on. " 18 U. S. C. 1081; see al so Uni t ed

St at es v. Cohen 260 F. 3d 68, 76 ( 2d Ci r . 2001) ( t r ansmi t t i ng bet s

over t he i nt er net vi ol at ed t he st at ut e because i t i nvol ved

t r ansmi ssi on t o and f r omcust omer s of bet t i ng i nf or mat i on) . Anyone

r eadi ng t hi s opi ni on on t he cour t ' s websi t e or t he l i ke woul d

r eadi l y agr ee t hat t he i nt er net i s used and usef ul i n t he

t r ansmi ssi on of wr i t i ngs. I ndeed, i t i s r at her r emar kabl e t hat a

def i ni t i on wr i t t en bef or e t he i nt er net was i nvent ed so accur at el y

descr i bes i t . When, as her e, t he t ext of a st at ut e "pr ovi des a

cl ear answer " t o a quest i on of st at ut or y const r uct i on our " i nqui r y

ends. " Uni t ed St at es v. Robi nson, 459 F. 3d 39, 51 ( 1st Ci r . 2006) .

The Wi r e Act ' s evi dent appl i cabi l i t y t o t he i nter net l i kewi se means

t hat i t s appl i cat i on t o Lyons and Er emi an i s not , cont r ar y t o t hei r

cl ai ms, an i mper mi ssi bl e ex post f act o "novel const r uct i on of a

cri mi nal st at ut e t o conduct t hat . . . t he st at ut e . . . has [ not ]

f ai r l y di scl osed t o be wi t hi n i t s scope. " Uni t ed St at es v. Lani er ,

520 U. S. 259, 266 ( 1997) .

The ar gument t o t he cont r ar y r el i es on t wo

mi sappr ehensi ons: Fi r st , t hat t he Wi r e Act cannot be appl i ed t o

communi cat i ons over t he i nt ernet because t he Act was enact ed i n

1961, bef or e t he i nt er net was cr eat ed and, second, t hat because t he

i nt er net i s i n some manner st r uct ur al l y di ssi mi l ar t o a t el ephone

or t el egr aph syst em, t he Wi r e Act cannot appl y t o i t . On t he f i r st

poi nt , we r egul ar l y appl y st at ut es t o t echnol ogi es t hat wer e not i n

-17-


18/55

pl ace when t he st atut es wer e enacted. See, e. g. , Sec. & Exch.

Comm' n v. SG Lt d. , 265 F. 3d 42, 55 ( 1st Ci r . 2001) ( Secur i t i es Act

of 1933 and Secur i t i es Act of 1934 appl i ed t o vi r t ual shar es whi ch

exi st onl y i n onl i ne game) ; Uni t ed St at es v. Ni chol s, 820 F. 2d 508,

511 ( 1st Ci r . 1987) ( t hef t st at ut e appl i ed t o t hef t of i nf or mat i on

f r om comput er net wor k) . As f or t he second poi nt , not hi ng i n t he

st at ut e suggest s t hat any i nst r ument al i t y cover ed by the Wi r e Act

must be st r uct ur al l y si mi l ar t o a t el ephone exchange.

Nor i s i t r el evant t hat t he i nt er net i s not a common

car r i er , as Lyons and Er emi an ar gue. Whi l e sect i on 1084( d) does

i mpose cer t ai n requi r ement s on common car r i ers who ar e i nf ormed

t hei r f aci l i t i es ar e bei ng used f or gambl i ng, not hi ng i n sect i on

1084 or sect i on 1081 l i mi t s t he appl i cat i on of t he Wi r e Act t o

t r ansmi ss i ons made vi a common car r i ers. 2

2 Lyons and Er emi an al so argue t hat " [ r ] epeat ed unsuccessf ulef f or t s by t he [ si c] Congr ess t o amend t he Wi r e Act ar e f ur t herevi dence that i t does not appl y t o I nt er net - gambl i ng of what evert ype. " Even i f unsuccess f ul at t empt s t o amend a st atut e decadesaf t er i t was passed wer e r el evant t o our i nt er pr et at i on of t hatst atut e, whi ch we doubt , Lyons and Er emi an poi nt onl y t o evi dencet hat Congr ess sought t o amend t he Wi r e Act t o cr i mi nal i ze f orms ofgambl i ng ot her t han spor t s bet t i ng. See I n r e Mast er Car d I nt ' lI nc. , I nt er net Gambl i ng Li t i g. , 132 F. Supp. 2d 468, 480 ( E. D. La.2001) af f ' d sub nom I n r e Mast er Car d I nt ' l I nc. , 313 F. 3d 257 ( 5t hCi r . 2002) . El sewhere, Lyons and Er emi an suggest t hat t he passage

of UI GEA suggest s t hat Congr ess f el t t hat t he Wi r e Act di d notappl y t o t he i nt er net ei t her because i t f el t t he need t o passl egi sl at i on par t i cul ar l y t ar get i ng i nt er net gambl i ng or because"Congr ess coul d have used t hi s occasi on t o amend/ moderni ze t he Wi r eAct t o speci f i cal l y i ncl ude t he I nt er net " but decl i ned t o do so.However , Congr ess made cl ear when i t passed UI GEA t hat i t di d notmodi f y exi st i ng gambl i ng l aws. 31 U. S. C. 5361( b) .

-18-


19/55

3. Mens Rea and the Wire Act

Lyons and Er emi an al so ar gue t hat t he government di d not

pr ove t hey had t he necessary mens r ea t o vi ol ate t he Wi r e Act .

What exact l y they say the gover nment f ai l ed t o pr ove i s uncl ear .

Readi ng t hei r pl eadi ng gener ousl y, t hey appear t o ar gue that even

i f t he i nt er net i s a wi r e communi cat i on f aci l i t y as a mat t er of

l aw, t he government was r equi r ed t o pr ove t hat t hey knew t he l aw.

Whi l e t here ar e cer t ai nl y good r easons why Congr ess mi ght not wi sh

t o puni sh as cr i mi nal s persons who do not know t hei r conduct may be

unl awf ul , as a gener al mat t er i gnor ance of t he l aw i s no def ense.

See Br yan v. Uni t ed St at es, 524 U. S. 184, 193 ( 1998) ( " [ U] nl ess t he

t ext of t he st at ut e di ctat es a di f f er ent r esul t , t he t er m

' knowi ngl y' mer el y requi r es pr oof of knowl edge of t he f act s t hat

const i t ut e t he of f ense. " ( f oot not e omi t t ed) ) ; Uni t ed St at es v.

Cohen, 260 F. 3d 68, 76 (2d Ci r . 2001) ( I n pr ovi ng mens r ea under

t he Wi r e Act , i t "mat t er ed onl y that [ t he def endant ] knowi ngl y

commi t t ed t he deeds f orbi dden by 1084, not t hat he i nt ended t o

vi ol at e t he st at ut e. " ) . Mor eover , i t i s wi del y known t hat many

f orms and means of gambl i ng are r egul ated or pr ohi bi t ed.

Cer t ai nl y, per sons engaged i n wi de- r angi ng gambl i ng oper at i ons and

st or i ng l ar ge sums of cash i n socks, cei l i ngs, and "si x- packs" ar e

not engaged i n t he t ypes of conduct t hat woul d j ust i f y appl yi ng any

except i on t o t he gener al r ul e t hat i gnor ance of t he l aw i s no

excuse.

-19-


20/55

4. Extraterritoriality and the Wire Act

Lyons' s and Er emi an' s convi ct i ons were not an i mpr oper

ext r at er r i t or i al appl i cat i on of t he Wi r e Act . I t i s a

"l ongst andi ng pr i nci pl e of Amer i can l aw t hat l egi sl at i on of

Congr ess, unl ess a cont r ar y i nt ent appear s, i s meant t o appl y onl y

wi t hi n t he t er r i t or i al j ur i sdi cti on of t he Uni t ed St at es. " Equal

Opport uni t y Emp' t Comm' n v. Ar abi an Am. Oi l Co. , 499 U. S. 244, 248

( 1991) ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) , super seded i n par t by

st atut e, see Ar baugh v. Y&H Corp, 546 U. S. 500, 512 n. 8 ( 2006) .

The Wi r e Act expr esses such a cont r ar y i ntent because i t expl i ci t l y

appl i es t o t r ansmi ssi ons bet ween t he Uni t ed St at es and a f or ei gn

count r y. 18 U. S. C. 1084; cf . Pasquant i no v. Uni t ed St at es, 544

U. S. 349, 371- 72 ( 2005) ( st at i ng t hat " t he wi r e f r aud st at ut e

puni shes f r auds execut ed i n ' i nt er st at e or f or ei gn commer ce, ' " and

t her ef or e can be appl i ed ext r at er r i t or i al l y because Congr ess di d

not have "onl y ' domest i c concer ns i n mi nd. ' " ( quot i ng 18 U. S. C.

1343 and Smal l v. Uni t ed St at es, 544 U. S. 385, 388 ( 2005) ) ) . The

communi cat i ons gi vi ng r i se t o these convi ct i ons had at l east one

par t i ci pant i nsi de t he Uni t ed St at es and t her ef or e f al l wi t hi n t he

st at ut e' s scope.

5. Proof of Sports Betting under the Wire Act

The Wi r e Act appl i es onl y t o "wager s on any spor t i ng

event or cont est , " t hat i s, spor t s bet t i ng. 18 U. S. C. 1084( a) ; see

al so I n r e Mast er Car d I nt ' l I nc. , 313 F. 3d 257, 263 ( 5t h Ci r .

-20-


21/55

2002) . Ther ef or e, Lyons and Er emi an say, t her e was i nsuf f i ci ent

evi dence t o convi ct t hembecause some evi dence at t r i al showed t hat

SOS al so accept ed bet s on casi no games and ot her f orms of gambl i ng

not cover ed by t he Wi r e Act . But not hi ng i n t he st at ut e l i mi t s i t s

r each t o ent i t i es devot ed excl usi vel y t o spor t s bet t i ng any mor e

t han a bank r obber get s of f i f he al so wi t hdr aws money pr oper l y

f r om an ATM. The di st r i ct cour t i nst r uct ed t he j ur y t hat t he Wi r e

Act onl y appl i ed t o spor t s bet t i ng. And t her e was ampl y suf f i ci ent

evi dence that Lyons and Er emi an, at l east , ai ded and abet t ed t he

r ecei pt of spor t s bet s. SOS was, af t er al l , "Spor t s Of f Shor e, "

not "Sl ot s Of f Shor e. " I t adver t i sed i t sel f as a pl ace t o bet on

spor t s, i t publ i shed odds f or spor t s bet s, and i t s cust omer -

wi t nesses t est i f i ed t hat t hey pl aced bet s on spor t s and pai d t hei r

l osses t o Lyons and Eremi an.

6. The Evidentiary Challenge to a Purported Directory

of SOS Customers

At t r i al , Lyons and Er emi an unsuccessf ul l y obj ect ed t o

t he gover nment ' s i nt r oduct i on of a di r ect or y of SOS cust omer s and

agent s. We r evi ew pr eserved evi dent i ar y cl ai ms f or abuse of

di scr et i on. See Uni t ed St at es v. Ri ver a- Donat e, 682 F. 3d 120, 131

( 1st Ci r . 2012) . Af t er i ni t i al l y admi t t i ng t he di r ector y but

r eservi ng j udgment on whet her i t coul d be admi t t ed f or t he t r ut h of

t he mat t er asser t ed, t he di st r i ct cour t l at er det er mi ned t hat i t

coul d be so admi t t ed under Feder al Rul e of Evi dence 801( d) ( 2) ( E) ,

whi ch cover s s t at ement s of a def endant ' s coconspi r at or s.

-21-


22/55

St at ement s can onl y be admi t t ed under Rul e 801( d) ( 2) ( E) i f t he

di st r i ct cour t f i nds by a pr eponder ance of t he evi dence " ( 1) t he

exi st ence of a conspi r acy, ( 2) t he def endant ' s member shi p i n t hat

conspi r acy, ( 3) t he decl ar ant ' s member shi p i n t he same conspi r acy,

and ( 4) t hat t he st atement be made i n f ur t herance of t he

conspi r acy. " Ri ver a- Donat e, 682 F. 3d at 131. The di st r i ct cour t

made such a f i ndi ng. 3

Ther e i s mor e t han enough evi dence i n t he r ecor d t o

concl ude t hat t he di st r i ct cour t di d not abuse i t s di scr et i on by

admi t t i ng t he di r ect or y. Each page of t he exhi bi t i s t i t l ed "agent

di r ectory" and has t he names and addr esses of bet t ors al ong wi t h a

col umn l abel ed " l i mi t " whi ch cont ai ns numbers between 0 and 15, 000.

The di r ect or y was t urned over t o pol i ce by gover nment wi t ness Li nda

Ri char dson. Ri char dson t est i f i ed t hat she hel ped her " l over and

best f r i end, most l y best f r i end" Ri char d Sul l i van, who was named i n

t he i ndi ct ment but i s cur r ent l y a f ugi t i ve, t r ansf er and st or e

money r el ated t o SOS. She f ound t he di r ectory wi t hi n SOS busi ness

r ecor ds Sul l i van l ef t i n her possessi on, but t est i f i ed t hat she had

no pr i or knowl edge t hat i t exi st ed. She r ecogni zed at l east one

3 Lyons and Er emi an cl ai m t hat t he di r ect or y was admi t t edunder Feder al Rul e of Evi dence 803( 6) ( B) but i n f act t he di st r i ct

cour t ' s r ef er ences t o Uni t ed St at es v. Pet r ozzi el l o, 548 F. 2d 20,23 ( 1st Ci r . 1977) , and t o f i ndi ng evi dence of a conspi r acy showt hat t he cour t under st ood the evi dence t o be i nt r oduced under Rul e801( d) ( 2) ( E) . I ndeed, Pet r ozzi el l o actual l y r epr esent s a r ul e f ort he admi ssi on of evi dence under Rul e 802( d) ( 2) ( E) whi ch i s nar r owert han t hat cur r ent l y i n ef f ect . See Uni t ed St at es v. Gol dber g, 105F. 3d 770, 775- 76 ( 1st Ci r . 1997) .

-22-


23/55

name on i t as someone who had gi ven or r ecei ved a check t o or f r om

Ri chard Sul l i van. The l edger al so cont ai ned names and addr esses

f or Dani el Er emi an and Todd Lyons. Several other wi t nesses

i dent i f i ed names on t he l i st as SOS cust omers or agent s, and some

cl ar i f i ed that t he agent number on t he t op of each page repr esent ed

an SOS agent whi l e the ot her names on t hat page were hi s cust omer s.

Records t hat can be shown by a pr eponder ance of t he

evi dence t o have been made by a member of a conspi r acy may be

admi t t ed under Rul e 801( d) ( 2) ( E) even i f t hei r pr eci se aut hor

cannot be i dent i f i ed. See, e. g. , Uni t ed St at es v. De Gudi no, 722

F. 2d 1351, 1355 ( 7t h Ci r . 1983) ; Uni t ed St at es v. Smi t h, 893 F. 2d

1573, 1577- 78 ( 9t h Ci r . 1990) ; cf . Uni t ed St at es v. Al osa, 14 F. 3d

693, 697 ( 1st Ci r . 1994) ( r ecor ds of a conspi r acy admi ssi bl e wher e

"t he di st r i ct cour t expr essl y f ound by a pr eponder ance of t he

evi dence that t he l edger s wer e made by conspi r at or s i n f ur t her ance

of t he conspi r acy. " ) . Her e, t her e was st r ong evi dence t hat t he

di r ect or y was aut hor ed by Ri char d Sul l i van or someone el se i nvol ved

wi t h SOS because i t cont ai ned i nf ormat i on t hat woul d onl y have been

avai l abl e t o someone i n t he i l l egal gambl i ng conspi r acy t hat was

SOS and woul d have onl y been of use t o someone managi ng SOS agent s.

And t he r ecor d wel l support ed t he f i ndi ng t hat Lyons and Er emi an

wer e members of t hat same conspi r acy.

Lyons and Er emi an al so ar gue t hat , even i f admi ss i on of

t he di r ect or y was cor r ect under t he Feder al Rul es of Evi dence, i t

-23-


24/55

nonet hel ess vi ol at ed t he Si xt h Amendment ' s Conf r ont at i on Cl ause.

But t hey mi sunder st and t he Conf r ont at i on Cl ause, mi st akenl y

bel i evi ng i t conf er s a gener al r i ght t o cr oss- exami ne t he sour ce of

al l evi dence i nt r oduced at t r i al . I nst ead, t he Conf r ont at i on

Cl ause appl i es onl y t o t est i moni al evi dence; t hat i s, evi dence

pr oduced wi t h a "pr i mar y pur pose of cr eat i ng an out - of - cour t

subst i t ut e f or t r i al t est i mony. " Mi chi gan v. Br yant , 131 S. Ct .

1143, 1155 ( 2011) . For t hi s reason, " [ b] usi ness and publ i c r ecor ds

ar e gener al l y admi ssi bl e absent conf r ont at i on . . . because- - havi ng

been cr eat ed f or t he admi ni st r at i on of an ent i t y' s af f ai r s and not

f or t he pur pose of est abl i shi ng or pr ovi ng some f act at t r i al - - t hey

ar e not t est i moni al . " Mel endez- Di az v. Massachuset t s, 557 U. S.

305, 324 ( 2009) . For t he same r eason, t he di r ect ory was not

t est i moni al .

7. The Lyons Wiretaps

The i ni t i al wi r et ap appl i cat i on t ar get ed a phone used by

a member of anot her gambl i ng oper at i on and was f i l ed on Oct ober 12,

2005. Af t er t hat appl i cat i on was appr oved, assi st ant di st r i ct

at t or neys f i l ed a ser i es of r enewal appl i cat i ons t hat expanded t he

i ni t i al aut hor i zat i on t o i ncl ude addi t i onal t el ephone number s,

i ncl udi ng, on December 8, 2005, Lyons' s number . Lyons was recor ded

bot h on hi s own phone and on ot her s' phones. Bef or e t r i al , Lyons

moved t o suppr ess evi dence der i ved f r om al l of t hese wi r et aps.

-24-


25/55

Whi l e Lyons' s br i ef conf l at es sever al di st i nct l egal

i ssues i n i t s di scussi on of t he wi r et aps, he essent i al l y makes

t hr ee ar gument s: Fi r st , t hat t he di st r i ct cour t ' s deci si on t hat

gambl i ng i s l egal i n Massachuset t s means t he wi r etap appl i cat i ons

were not support ed by pr obabl e cause and the evi dence der i ved f r om

t hem shoul d t her ef or e be suppr essed. Second, t hat t he wi r et aps

wer e not aut hor i zed by t he Essex Count y Di st r i ct At t or ney and

t her ef or e wer e gr ant ed i n vi ol at i on of f eder al l aw and shoul d be

suppr essed or at l east shoul d have been subj ect t o chal l enge i n an

evi dent i ar y hear i ng. Thi r d, t hat even i f t he wi r et aps wer e i n f act

aut hor i zed t hey shoul d be suppr essed because t he i ni t i al wi r et ap

appl i cat i on di d not f aci al l y demonst r at e t hat i t was pr oper l y

aut hor i zed. We addr ess t hese argument s i n t ur n.

a. Probable Cause for the Wiretaps

Lyons ar gues f or t he f i r st t i me on appeal t hat t he pol i ce

l acked pr obabl e cause f or t he wi r et aps. "A par t y wai ves [ a

suppr essi on ar gument under r ul e 12( c) ] . . . not r ai sed by t he

deadl i ne t he cour t sets. " Fed. R. Cr i m. P. 12( e) . Her e, Lyons di d

not r ai se t hi s ar gument at al l bel ow. Whi l e " [ f ] or good cause, t he

cour t may gr ant r el i ef f r om t he wai ver , " i d. , Lyons has not

addr essed t he wai ver i ssue at al l , l et al one expl ai ned why he has

good cause t o seek r el i ef f r om i t . Despi t e Rul e 12' s cl ar i t y, we

have suggest ed i n the past t hat we may somet i mes nonethel ess r evi ew

unpr eserved suppr essi on cl ai ms f or pl ai n er r or . See Uni t ed St at es

-25-


26/55

v. Nuez, 19 F. 3d 719, 723 n. 10 ( 1st Ci r . 1994) ( not i ng t hat some

cour t s have conduct ed pl ai n er r or r evi ew of cl ai ms wai ved under

what was t hen Rul e 12( f ) and i s now Rul e 12( e) , but al so t hat t hi s

i s not necessar i l y r equi r ed) . Mor e r ecent l y, however , we have

emphasi zed t he cat egor i cal l anguage of Rul e 12( e) and made cl ear

t hat i t i s "' mani f est l y unf ai r ' " t o t he pr osecut i on t o al l ow t he

def endant t o r ai se on appeal a suppr essi on cl ai m t hat was not

r ai sed bel ow, even i f suppr essi on of t he same evi dence was sought

on ot her gr ounds. Uni t ed St at es v. Cr ooker , 688 F. 3d 1, 9 ( 1st

Ci r . 2012) ( quot i ng Uni t ed St at es v. Wal ker , 665 F. 3d 212, 228 ( 1st

Ci r . 2011) ) . We see no r eason t o f i nd t hat mani f est unf ai r ness

absent here.

b. Authorization of the Wiretaps

Lyons di d t i mel y r ai se i n t he di st r i ct cour t hi s ot her

t wo chal l enges to t he wi r et aps. The st andar d of r evi ew f or

preser ved suppressi on argument s can be somewhat conf usi ng because

such mot i ons i nt er weave quest i ons of f act and l aw:

When r evi ewi ng a chal l enge t o a di st r i ct cour t ' s deci si onon a suppr essi on mot i on, we revi ew t he di st r i ct cour t ' sf act ual f i ndi ngs and credi bi l i t y det er mi nat i ons onl y f orcl ear er r or . Uni t ed St at es v. Camacho, 661 F. 3d 718, 723( 1st Ci r . 2011) ; see Or nel as [ v. Uni t ed St at es, 517 U. S.[ 690, ] 699 . . . [ ( 1996) ] ( f i ndi ngs of hi stor i cal f actr evi ewed f or cl ear er r or ) . We r evi ew t he cour t ' s l egal

concl usi ons de novo. Uni t ed St at es v. Rabbi a, 699 F. 3d85, 89 ( 1st Ci r . 2012) . That bei ng sai d, i t i s al so t r uet hat we ' gi ve due wei ght t o i nf er ences drawn f r omhi st or i cal f act s by r esi dent j udges and l ocal l awenf or cement of f i cer s. ' Or nel as, 517 U. S. at 699 . . . .As expl ai ned i n Uni t ed St ates v. Townsend, 305 F. 3d 537( 6t h Ci r . 2002) , t he di st r i ct cour t , whi ch obser ves t he

-26-


27/55

t est i mony of t he wi t nesses and under st ands l ocalcondi t i ons, i s at an i nst i t ut i onal advant age i n maki ngt hi s det er mi nat i on. I d. at 542. "Accor di ngl y, ' duewei ght ' shoul d be gi ven t o the i nf er ences drawn f r omt hef act s by ' r esi dent j udges. ' " I d. ( quot i ng Or nel as, 517U. S. at 698) .

Uni t ed St at es v. Dapol i t o, 713 F. 3d 141, 147 ( 1st Ci r . 2013) .

Lyons' s f i r st pr eser ved ar gument i s t hat t he wi r et ap

appl i cat i ons wer e not r evi ewed by the Essex Count y Di st r i ct

At t or ney and ar e t her ef or e i nval i d. Lyons i s cor r ect t hat a

wi r etap sought by st ate l aw enf orcement must be aut hor i zed by t he

pr i nci pal pr osecut i ng at t or ney f or t he j ur i sdi cti on- - ei t her t he

st at e at t or ney gener al or t he count y di st r i ct at t or ney, i n t hi s

case t he Essex Count y Di st r i ct At t or ney. 18 U. S. C. 2516( 2) .

Under Massachuset t s l aw, t he pr i nci pal pr osecut i ng at t or ney need

not hi msel f appear i n cour t i n suppor t of ever y wi r et ap

appl i cat i on. I nst ead, he may speci al l y desi gnat e a subor di nat e t o

exer ci se hi s aut hor i t y on a case by case basi s, but onl y i n wr i t i ngand af t er he has per sonal l y r evi ewed t he wi r et ap appl i cat i on.

Mass. Gen. Laws. ch. 272, 99( F) ( 1) ; see al so Uni t ed St at es v.

Smi t h, 726 F. 2d 852, 857- 58 ( 1st Ci r . 1984) ( ci t i ng Commonweal t h v.

Vi t el l o, 367 Mass. 224 ( 1975) ) .

The Essex County Di st r i ct At t or ney, J onat han Bl odget t ,

si gned l et t er s aut hor i zi ng t wo assi st ant di st r i ct at t or neys t o f i l e

-27-


28/55

t he f i r st wi r et ap appl i cat i on at i ssue her e. 4 One l et t er was

addr essed t o t he st at e j ust i ce r ecei vi ng t he appl i cat i on and t he

ot her was addr essed t o t he assi st ant di st r i ct at t or neys bei ng

speci al l y desi gnat ed. I n addi t i on t o aut hor i zi ng t he assi st ant

di str i ct at t or neys t o f i l e t he appl i cat i ons, t he l et t er t o t he

st at e j ust i ce expl ai ned t hat "al l of [ t he wi r et ap appl i cat i ons]

shal l be revi ewed by me or my desi gnee bef ore bei ng pr esent ed t o

you. "

St andi ng on i t s own, t hi s l et t er mi ght be i nsuf f i ci ent

because Massachuset t s r equi r es t hat t he di st r i ct at t or ney

per sonal l y r evi ew t he appl i cat i on- - a desi gnee i s i nsuf f i ci ent .

Vi t el l o, 367 Mass. at 231- 32. However , i n an i ni t i al r ul i ng on t he

suppr essi on mot i on, t he di st r i ct cour t det er mi ned t hat " [ t ] he f act

t hat t he desi gnat i on l et t er , t he l et t er t o [ t he st at e j ust i ce] , and

t he war r ant appl i cat i on wer e al l dat ed Oct ober 12 suppor t s t he

r easonabl e i nf er ence t hat t hey wer e al l pr esent ed t oget her and t hat

D. A. Bl odget t was f ami l i ar wi t h t he cont ent s of t he appl i cat i on. "

Thi s i nf er ence was not cl ear l y er r oneous. The di st r i ct cour t

t her ef or e pr oper l y deni ed t he suppr essi on mot i on as t o t he phone

number s l i st ed i n t he Oct ober 12t h appl i cat i on.

4 The act ual war r ant appl i cat i ons ar e not par t of t he r ecor don appeal or avai l abl e on t he di st r i ct cour t docket . Ther e i s nodi sput e, however , t hat t he i ni t i al wi r et ap at i ssue was sought byt he assi st ant di st r i ct at t or neys desi gnat ed by Di st r i ct At t or neyBl odget t and so not hi ng i n t he wi r et ap appl i cat i ons i s r el evant t ot he i ssue bef or e us.

-28-


29/55

Because the di st r i ct cour t was uncer t ai n whet her

Massachuset t s l aw r equi r ed r e- desi gnat i on and per sonal r evi ew by

t he di st r i ct at t orney when new numbers were added t o an exi st i ng

wi r et ap, i t or der ed Di st r i ct At t or ney Bl odget t t o f i l e "an

af f i davi t r egar di ng hi s aut hor i zat i on of t he par t i cul ar amendment s

at i ssue . . . . " Di st r i ct At t or ney Bl odget t f i l ed such an

af f i davi t i n whi ch he made cl ear t hat he "per sonal l y r evi ewed each

and ever y renewal appl i cat i on" pr i or t o i t s submi ssi on and t hat he

i nt ended t he speci al l y desi gnat ed assi st ant di st r i ct at t or neys t o

over see t he ent i r e i nvest i gat i on, i ncl udi ng bot h t he or i gi nal

wi r et aps and t he " r enewal s. " The af f i davi t al so st at ed t hat , as

t he di s t r i ct cour t i nf er r ed i n i t s i ni t i al rul i ng, Di s t r i ct

At t or ney Bl odget t di d i n f act per sonal l y aut hor i ze t he Oct ober 12t h

wi r et ap appl i cat i on. The di st r i ct cour t t her ef or e deni ed t he

suppr essi on mot i on as t o t he r emai ni ng wi r et aps.

We have pr evi ousl y hel d t hat , i n combi nat i on wi t h l et t er s

subst ant i al l y equi val ent t o t he ones t hat accompani ed t he i ni t i al

appl i cat i on i n t hi s case, an af f i davi t l i ke t hat submi t t ed by

Di st r i ct At t or ney Bl odget t i s suf f i ci ent t o est abl i sh actual

aut hor i zat i on. Uni t ed St at es v. Al ber t el l i , 687 F. 3d 439, 443 ( 1st

Ci r . 2012) . We t her ef or e have no r eason t o quest i on t he di st r i ct

cour t ' s f act ual f i ndi ng t hat each wi r et ap appl i cat i on was

speci f i cal l y and per sonal l y aut hor i zed by Di st r i ct At t or ney

Bl odget t as Massachuset t s and f eder al l aw r equi r e. The di st r i ct

-29-


30/55

cour t al so di d not er r by f ai l i ng t o hol d an evi dent i ar y hear i ng

because the cour t i nqui r ed i nt o t he par t i cul ar ci r cumst ances and

"t he onl y mater i al di sput e was not about what happened but whether

t he di st r i ct at t or ney' s ver si on of what he di d was suf f i ci ent

over si ght . " I d. Cer t ai nl y Lyons poi nt s t o no evi dence he coul d

have sought t o i nt r oduce or di scover at an evi dent i ar y hear i ng

whi ch coul d have cont r adi ct ed Di st r i ct At t or ney Bl odget t ' s ver si on

of event s. Nor does he poi nt even t o a quest i on he mi ght have

asked Bl odget t . We t her ef or e f ace si mi l ar f act s as i n Al ber t el l i

and so r each t he same resul t - - t he wi r et ap was proper l y aut hor i zed. 5

c. Facial Sufficiency of the Wiretap Application

Lyons al so ar gues t hat t he wi r etap evi dence shoul d be

suppr essed because, even i f t he war r ant was pr oper l y aut hor i zed, i t

di d not make cl ear on i t s f ace that i t had been r evi ewed by

Di st r i ct At t or ney Bl odget t . Thi s ar gument conf l at es two separ at e

sect i ons of t he f eder al l aw gover ni ng wi r et aps, Ti t l e 18, sect i ons

2516 and 2518. Sect i on 2516 set s out t he subst ant i ve r equi r ement s

f or t he aut hor i zat i on of a wi r et ap, i ncl udi ng t he r equi r ement of

r evi ew by t he pr i nci pal pr osecut i ng at t or ney, whi l e sect i on 2518

set s out t he pr ocedur e by whi ch wi r etaps can be r equest ed. Nothi ng

5 Lyons al so suggest s t hat he had a r i ght t o conf r ontDi st r i ct At t or ney Bl odget t . Agai n, he mi sunder st ands t heConf r ont at i on Cl ause. See Uni t ed St at es v. Mi t chel l - Hunt er , 663F. 3d 45, 51- 52 ( 1st Ci r . 2011) ( col l ect i ng "ext ensi ve case l awdecl i ni ng t o appl y t he conf r ont at i on r i ght t o var i ous pr e- andpost - t r i al pr oceedi ngs") .

-30-


31/55

i n sect i on 2518 r equi r es t hat a wi r et ap appl i cat i on i t sel f cont ai n

pr oof t hat i t has been r evi ewed by t he pr i nci pal pr osecut i ng

at t or ney. Uni t ed St at es v. Vent o, 533 F. 2d 838, 859- 60 ( 3d Ci r .

1976) ( Aut hor i zat i on l et t er di d not need not be shown t o t he

i ssui ng j udge. ) ; see al so Uni t ed St at e v. Chavez, 416 U. S. 562, 575

( 1974) ( Evi dence der i ved f r om a wi r et ap di d not need t o be

suppr essed wher e "mi si dent i f i cat i on of t he of f i cer aut hor i zi ng t he

wi r et ap appl i cat i on [ i n t he appl i cat i on] di d not af f ect t he

f ul f i l l ment of any of t he r evi ewi ng or appr oval f unct i ons r equi r ed

by Congr ess. " ) . I nst ead, t he appl i cat i on must onl y st at e " t he

appl i cant ' s aut hor i t y t o make such appl i cat i on. " 18 U. S. C.

2518( 1) . 6

The desi gnat i on l et t er made cl ear t hat Di st r i ct At t or ney

Bl odget t aut hor i zed t he appl i cat i on. Our concl usi on t hat pr oof of

r evi ew by t he di st r i ct at t or ney i s not r equi r ed on t he f ace of t he

appl i cat i on al so f ol l ows f r omUni t ed St at es v. Smi t h, 726 F. 2d 852,

860 ( 1st Ci r . 1984) , i n whi ch we r ecogni zed t hat f ai l ur e t o i ncl ude

pr oof of aut hor i zat i on i n t he appl i cat i on coul d be r emedi ed by

subsequent l y pr oduced evi dence of aut hor i zat i on.

6 The di st i nct i on bet ween t he i dent i t y of t he aut hor i zi ng

of f i ci al , whi ch must be pr esent on t he f ace of t he appl i cat i on, andpr oof of aut hor i zat i on, whi ch need not be i ncl uded, i s cr i t i cal .Lyons mi st akenl y r el i es on Uni t ed St at es v. St af f el dt , 451 F. 3d578, 584- 85 ( 9t h Ci r . 2006) , whi ch hol ds t hat , i n some cases,f ai l ur e t o pr ovi de t he f or mer on t he f ace of t he appl i cat i on i sgr ounds f or suppr essi on. Her e, however , t he i ssue i s the absenceof t he l at t er .

-31-


32/55

8. The Lyons Searches

I n addi t i on t o t he wi r et aps, Lyons argues t hat t he

di st r i ct cour t er r ed by denyi ng hi s mot i on t o suppr ess evi dence

obt ai ned f r om t he 2006 sear ches of hi s home, car , and per son

pur suant t o war r ant s. Fi r st , Lyons ar gues that t her e was not

pr obabl e cause f or t he sear ch of hi s home. Second, he argues that

t he st at e j ust i ce' s f ai l ur e t o si gn t he f i nal page of each war r ant

means t hat t he searches vi ol ated t he Four t h Amendment of t he Uni t ed

St at es Const i t ut i on. We r ej ect bot h ar gument s and af f i r m t he

di st r i ct cour t ' s deni al of Lyons' s mot i on t o suppr ess.

a. Probable Cause For the Searches

Lyons chal l enges t he war r ant s t o sear ch hi s home, car ,

and per son usi ng t he same ar gument he f i r st made about t he

wi r et aps: t hat t he subsequent deci si on by t he di st r i ct cour t t hat

i nt ernet gambl i ng i s l egal i n Massachuset t s means t her e was not

pr obabl e cause t o suspect hi mof a cr i me. He has agai n wai ved t hat

ar gument by f ai l i ng t o r ai se i t bel ow and we t her ef or e r ej ect i t

wi t hout f ur t her di scussi on f or t he r easons st at ed above.

Lyons al so br i ngs a pr oper l y pr eserved chal l enge to the

sear ch of hi s home, argui ng t hat t here was no nexus between t he

evi dence sought i n t he sear ch warr ant and hi s home. A val i d

war r ant appl i cat i on must est abl i sh t hat t her e i s pr obabl e cause t o

bel i eve t hat t he evi dence descr i bed i n i t wi l l be f ound i n t he

pl ace t o be sear ched. Uni t ed St at es v. Fel i z, 182 F. 3d 82, 86 ( 1st

-32-


33/55

Ci r . 1999) . The government need not show, however , t hat " t he

bel i ef [ i s] . . . necessar i l y cor r ect or mor e l i kel y t r ue t han

f al se. " I d. at 87 ( ci t i ng Spi nel l i v. Uni t ed St at es, 393 U. S. 410,

419 ( 1969) ) . I nst ead, " [ o] ur i nqui r y i s whet her t he magi st r at e had

a ' subst ant i al basi s' f or concl udi ng t hat pr obabl e cause exi st ed. "

I d. at 86 ( quot i ng Uni t ed St at es v. Tayl or , 985 F. 2d 3, 5 ( 1st

Ci r . 1993) ) .

The t r ooper ' s af f i davi t submi t t ed i n suppor t of t he

war r ant appl i cat i on f or Lyons' s home cont ai ned suf f i ci ent evi dence

of a nexus bet ween t he evi dence i t sought and Lyons' s home. The

t r ooper st at ed under oat h t hat "Lyons woul d go di r ect l y to hi s

r esi dence when he had compl eted hi s meet s [ wi t h bet t ors. ] "7 He

al so st at ed t hat " [ b] ased on my t r ai ni ng and exper i ence and coupl ed

wi t h t he i nt er cept ed conver sat i ons t hat I have r evi ewed r egar di ng

Todd Lyons, i t i s my opi ni on t hat Todd Lyons uses hi s r esi dence as

a pl ace wher e he st or es gami ng r ecor ds and money. " We have

pr evi ousl y hel d that t he nexus r equi r ement was met by weaker

evi dence. See, e. g. , Uni t ed St at es v. Ri bei r o, 397 F. 3d 43, 50

( 1st Ci r . 2005) ( hol di ng t hat di r ect t r i ps bet ween home and si t es

of dr ug deal s and def endant ' s need t o st or e l ar ge quant i t i es of

cash suf f i ci ent t o demonst r at e nexus) ; Uni t ed St at es v. Bar nes, 492

7 Lyons i s cor r ect t hat t he af f i davi t does not descr i be t hesei nci dent s wi t h par t i cul ar i t y, but pr ovi des no r eason t o bel i eve t het r ooper ' s st at ement i naccur at el y descr i bes what he and ot hert r ooper s observed.

-33-


34/55

F. 3d 33, 37 ( 1st Ci r . 2007) ( hol di ng t hat "when a def endant sel l s

dr ugs out si de hi s home, i t i s r easonabl e t o concl ude t hat t her e i s

evi dence of hi s dr ug deal i ng act i vi t y i n t he home") ; Fel i z, 182

F. 3d at 88 ( col l ect i ng cases) . We t her ef or e f i nd t hat t he war r ant

was suppor t ed by pr obabl e cause.

b. The Unsigned Warrants

Absent except i ons not pr esent her e, pol i ce may not sear ch

a person' s home wi t hout a war r ant . 8 See, e. g. , Kent ucky v. Ki ng,

131 S. Ct . 1849, 1856 ( 2011) . The Four t h Amendment t o t he Uni t ed

St at es Const i t ut i on pr ovi des t hat "no War r ant s shal l i ssue, but

upon pr obabl e cause, suppor t ed by Oat h or af f i r mat i on, and

par t i cul ar l y descr i bi ng t he pl ace t o be sear ched, and t he per sons

or t hi ngs t o be sei zed. " The pol i ce seeki ng t o sear ch Lyons' s home

compl et ed a wr i t t en appl i cat i on t o sear ch i t and swor e i n suppor t

of t hat appl i cat i on. The appl i cat i on r eci t ed f act s est abl i shi ng

pr obabl e cause. The st at e j udge r evi ewed t he appl i cat i on,

det er mi ned t hat pr obabl e cause exi st ed, si gned t he appl i cat i on, and

si gned t he accompanyi ng af f i davi t . The war r ant descr i bed

par t i cul ar l y t he pl ace t o be sear ched, and t he per sons or t hi ngs t o

be sei zed.

8 Because t he evi dence Lyons seeks to suppr ess was, i tappear s f r om t he r ecor d, f ound i n hi s home, not hi s car or on hi sper son, we di scuss onl y t he war r ant f or t he sear ch of hi s home.Our anal ysi s woul d appl y equal l y, however , t o al l t hr ee war r ant s.

-34-


35/55

The j udge, however , uni ntent i onal l y f or got t o si gn t he

war r ant i t sel f bef or e t he of f i cer s conduct ed t he sear ch. The

f ol l owi ng day, af t er t he sear ch was compl et e, st at e l aw enf or cement

of f i ci al s not i ced t he omi ssi on. The pr osecut or pr ompt l y r et ur ned

t hat day t o t he same j udge, who bel atedl y si gned t he warr ant , at

t he same t i me wr i t i ng a not e expl ai ni ng t hat hi s f ai l ur e t o si gn

pr evi ousl y "was i nadver t ent and of no subst ant i ve consequence. "

Lyons specul at es t hat t he st at e j udge i n f act never saw

or appr oved t he war r ant unt i l he l at er si gned i t , but t he evi dence

ampl y suppor t s t he di st r i ct cour t ' s f actual f i ndi ng t o t he

cont r ar y. Cf . Uni t ed St at es v. Dubose, 579 F. 3d 117, 120 ( 1st Ci r .

2009) ( f i ndi ngs of f act on mot i ons t o suppr ess r evi ewed f or cl ear

er r or ) . Lyons al t er nat i vel y cl ai ms t hat t he r ecor d i s def ect i ve

( and an evi dent i ar y hear i ng was t her ef or e r equi r ed) because i t does

not show "exact l y" when, dur i ng t he one- day i nt er l ude between

i ssuance and si gni ng, t he Commonweal t h not i ced t he err or , or

exact l y how t he j udge was appr oached t o cor r ect t he err or . The

si mpl e answer t o t hi s asser t i on i s t hat t he "mi ssi ng" f act s ar e

pl ai nl y i mmat er i al t o whet her t he war r ant appl i cat i on was pr oper l y

r evi ewed and whet her t he st at e cour t j udge i ssued the war r ant .

Lyons ar gues, f i nal l y, t hat t he war r ant was i nval i d

pr eci sel y because i t was not si gned unt i l af t er t he sear ch. Thi s

cour t has not pr evi ousl y rul ed on whet her a si gnat ur e i s r equi r ed

f or a sear ch warr ant . But we see nothi ng i n t he Four t h Amendment

-35-


36/55

t hat condi t i ons t he val i di t y of a war r ant on i t s bei ng si gned.

Si mi l ar l y, whi l e Feder al Rul e of Cr i mi nal Pr ocedur e 4( b) ( 1) ( D)

expl i ci t l y st at es t hat ar r est war r ant s must be si gned ( as does

Mass. R. Cr i m. P. 6( b) ( 1) ) , nei t her f eder al nor st at e r ul es of

cr i mi nal pr ocedur e gover ni ng sear ch war r ant s cont ai n such a

r equi r ement . 9 See Fed. R. Cr i m. P. 41( e) ( 1) ; Mass. Gen. Laws ch.

276, 1. Cer t ai nl y that whi ch t he Four t h Amendment r equi r es must

appear on t he war r ant ( a par t i cul ar descr i pt i on of t he "pl ace t o be

sear ched" and "per sons or t hi ngs t o be sei zed") . And a war r ant

does not i ssue unl ess i t has been support ed by an oat h or

af f i r mat i on and a neut r al and detached magi st r ate makes a pr obabl e

cause det er mi nat i on. See, e. g. , Ki ng, 131 S. Ct . at 1864. But we

see no convi nci ng r eason t o f i nd i mpl i ci t i n t he Four t h Amendment

a const i t ut i onal mandate t hat t he magi st r ate who has made a

pr obabl e cause det er mi nat i on al so si gn t he war r ant .

Our r el at ed pr ecedent , whi l e not di r ect l y on poi nt ,

suppor t s t he concl usi on t hat a si gnat ur e i s not r equi r ed. I n Bur ke

v. Town of Wal pol e, 405 F. 3d 66, 78 ( 1st Ci r . 2005) , we r ul ed t hat

t he pol i ce' s i nabi l i t y t o l ocat e a si gned copy of an ar r est war r ant

9 The Massachuset t s Supr eme J udi ci al Cour t has hel d t hat

si gnat ur es are not r equi r ed f or a sear ch war r ant t o be val i dl yi ssued. Commonweal t h v. Pel l egr i ni , 405 Mass. 86, 90 ( 1989) .Though compl i ance wi t h st at e l aw i s nei t her necessar y norsuf f i ci ent f or evi dence' s admi ssi on i n f eder al cour t , see, e. g. ,Uni t ed St at es v. Char l es, 213 F. 3d 10, 19 ( 1st Ci r . 2000) , wement i on Massachuset t s l aw her e t o under l i ne t hat our concl usi on i sconsi st ent wi t h t hat of ot her cour t s.

-36-


37/55

di d not pr ecl ude the st at e f r ompr ovi ng wi t h " i mper f ect [ ] evi dence"

t hat t he war r ant had i n f act been i ssued. See al so Uni t ed St at es

v. Prat t , 438 F. 3d 1264, 1270 ( 11t h Ci r . 2006) ( Wher e a sear ch

war r ant i s l ost af t er t he sear ch i t aut hor i zes i s conduct ed and

t her ef or e " i s not i n evi dence at a suppr essi on hear i ng, "

suppr essi on i s not necessar y i f "a pr osecut or [ can] pr ove, by a

pr eponder ance of t he evi dence, t he mi ssi ng sear ch war r ant ' s exact

l anguage descr i bi ng t he pl ace t o be sear ched and t he persons or

i t ems to be sei zed. " ) . I f i ssuance of an ar r est war r ant can be

est abl i shed wi t hout a si gned copy of t he warr ant , we see no reason

why si gni ng i s necessar y to pr ove i ssuance of a sear ch war r ant .

Our concl usi on i s st r engt hened by t he consi st ent

r ej ect i on of f or mal i st i c appr oaches t o si gnat ur es i n war r ant s by

f eder al appel l at e cour t s i n ot her cont ext s. Li ke ot her ci r cui t s,

we have r ej ect ed t he posi t i on t hat t he copy of t he war r ant

pr esent ed t o a homeowner must bear a si gnatur e. See Sadl owski v.

Benoi t , 62 F. App' x 3, 5 ( 1st Ci r . 2003) ( unpubl i shed) ( per

cur i am) ; accor d Uni t ed St at es v. Beal s, 698 F. 3d 248, 264- 65 ( 6t h

Ci r . 2012) ( hol di ng t hat war r ant was " not any l ess ' i ssued' " wher e

j udge si gned onl y one copy and unsi gned copy was present ed t o t he

def endant ) ; Uni t ed St at es v. Li pf or d, 203 F. 3d 259, 270 ( 4t h Ci r .

2000) ( f ai l ur e t o pr esent si gned copy of a sear ch war r ant t o t he

per son whose home i s sear ched i s " at most , a t echni cal vi ol at i on of

-37-


38/55

Feder al Rul e of Cr i mi nal Pr ocedur e 41( d) , and not a vi ol at i on of

t he Four t h Amendment . " ) .

The Second Ci r cui t has gone f ur t her , not i ng t hat " t he

Four t h Amendment r equi r es t hat . . . t he j udgment al f unct i on of

dr awi ng i nf er ences f r om evi dence and deci di ng whet her pr obabl e

cause exi st s be made by a neut r al and detached magi st r ate, " but

t hat "not hi ng i n the Four t h Amendment pr event [ s a] magi st r at e f r om

del egat i ng" t he "pur el y mi ni st er i al t ask" of si gni ng t he war r ant t o

someone el se. Uni t ed St at es v. Tur ner , 558 F. 2d 46, 50 ( 2d Ci r .

1977) ( appr ovi ng a war r ant appl i cat i on and i ssuance made ent i r el y

by t el ephone) . The Ei ght h Ci r cui t has hel d t hat Ti t l e I I I ( t he

wi r et ap st at ut e codi f i ed at 18 U. S. C. 25102520) , whi ch i s

si l ent on whet her wi r et ap or der s must be si gned, does not r equi r e

a si gnat ur e wher e " [ t ] he r ecor d r eveal s compl i ance wi t h al l t he

f undament al st at ut or y saf eguar ds t hat pr ot ect agai nst unaut hor i zed

or unwar r ant ed wi r et ap sur vei l l ance. " Uni t ed St at es v. Moor e, 41

F. 3d 370, 375 ( 8t h Ci r . 1994) ; see al so Uni t ed St at es v. J ohnson,

CRI M. 08- 374, 2012 WL 2370434 ( W. D. Pa. J une 21, 2012) ( same) . But

see Uni t ed Stat es v. Moor e, 4: CR93- 3035, 1993 WL 764485 ( D. Neb.

Dec. 28, 1993) ( suppr essi ng wi r etap conduct ed under unsi gned

wi r et ap or der wher e j udge who f ai l ed t o si gn t he or der t est i f i ed

t hat he i nt ended t o si gn i t but coul d not r ecal l what , i f anyt hi ng,

he sai d t o t he r equest i ng of f i cer s at t he t i me) . And i n t he

cont ext of ar r est war r ant s, t he Sevent h Ci r cui t has observed t hat

-38-


39/55

" [ i ] ssui ng a war r ant i s not synonymous wi t h si gni ng a war r ant "

because whi l e Feder al Rul e of Cr i mi nal Pr ocedur e 4( b) ( 1) ( D)

r equi r es a j udge' s si gnat ur e f or ar r est war r ant s i ssued pur suant t o

a cr i mi nal compl ai nt , Rul e 9 st at es t hat war r ant s f or a def endant

named i n an i ndi ct ment must st i l l be i ssued by a j udge but may be

si gned by a cl er k of t he cour t . Uni t ed St at es v. Hondr as, 296 F. 3d

601, 603 ( 7t h Ci r . 2002) ; see al so I SSUE, Bl ack' s Law Di ct i onar y

908 ( 9t h ed. 2009) ( def i ni ng " i ssue" as " [ t ] o send out or

di st r i but e of f i ci al l y") . Cer t ai nl y our own opi ni ons and mandat es

ar e " i ssued" not wi t hst andi ng t he absence of a si gnat ur e.

Though none of t hese cases f r om ot her ci r cui t s address

t he pr eci se quest i on bef or e us, 10 t aken together t hey show a

consi st ent unwi l l i ngness t o f i nd a const i t ut i onal vi ol at i on when

10 The maj or i t y of t he f ew di st r i ct cour t opi ni ons on poi nt

r ej ect t he posi t i on t hat a war r ant must be si gned t o be val i dl yi ssued. See Uni t ed St at es v. J ackson, 617 F. Supp. 2d 316, 320- 21( M. D. Pa. 2008) ( hol di ng t hat an unsi gned war r ant i s val i d i fsuppor t ed by suf f i ci ent "i ndi ci a of i ssuance") ; Uni t ed St at es v.Mart i n, 8: 10- CR- 305- T- 33AEP, 2011 WL 722969, at *4 ( M. D. Fl a.Feb. 7, 2011) ( hol di ng t hat " t he Cour t ' s sol e i nqui r y shoul d be t odetermi ne whether t he search warr ant was r evi ewed and i ssued by anappr opr i at e j udi ci al aut hor i t y upon an exami nat i on of al l r el evantand credi bl e evi dence") ; Per r i n v. Ci t y of El ber t on, GA,3: 03- CV- 106( CDL) , 2005 WL 1563530 ( M. D. Ga. J ul y 1, 2005) ( hol di ngt hat " i n t he absence of a j udge' s s i gnat ur e, a cour t may consi derother evi dence t hat t he j udge f ound pr obabl e cause and appr oved t he

war r ant " but concl udi ng t her e was i nsuf f i ci ent evi dence of suchi ssuance) ; J ohnson v. Kosci usko Pol i ce Dep' t , 1: 09CV169- M- S, 2010WL 1237934 ( N. D. Mi ss . Mar . 25, 2010) ( hol di ng the same i n asect i on 1983 case) . But see Uni t ed St at es v. Evans, 469 F. Supp.2d 893, 897- 99 ( D. Mont . 2007) ( r ej ect i ng argument t hat a warr antcoul d be sai d t o have i ssued where j udge "may wel l have" i nt endedt o si gn i t but f ai l ed t o do so) .

-39-


40/55

t he expr ess mandates of both const i t ut i on and r ul e have been

sat i sf i ed. Gi ven t he cl ear and cont empor aneous evi dence t hat t he

st ate j ust i ce made a pr oper pr obabl e cause determi nat i on and

appr oved t he i ssuance of a war r ant f or execut i on, we decl i ne t o

f i nd i n t he l ack of a si gnat ur e a r eason f or suppr essi on.

We do, t hough, add a note of caut i on: The pr esence of a

si gnat ur e pr ovi des easy and r el i abl e pr oof t hat a war r ant was i n

f act i ssued. An of f i cer who observes that a war r ant i s unsi gned

mi ght not be assur ed t hat i t was actual l y i ssued, and mi ght execut e

i t at hi s per i l i f he has no ot her good r eason t o bel i eve t he

war r ant was i ssued. And when, as her e, t he war r ant i s not si gned,

pr oof of i ssuance becomes more i nvol ved and l ess cer t ai n. I n many

ci r cumst ances, t he magi st r at e or j udge may not r ecal l r evi ewi ng or

i ssui ng t he war r ant by t he t i me hi s bel at ed si gnat ur e i s sought .

For t hese r easons, we ar e conf i dent t hat pol i ce wi l l cont i nue t o

have ampl e i ncent i ve t o secur e si gnat ur es. I n any event , we f i nd

no suf f i ci ent r eason t o r ead a si gnat ur e requi r ement i nt o the

Four t h Amendment , and we l eave t o any f ut ur e revi ser s of Federal

Rul e of Cr i mi nal Procedur e 41( e) whet her t o adopt such a pr esent l y-

omi t t ed r equi r ement f or sear ch war r ant s.

9. Lyons's Money Laundering Conviction

Lyons chal l enges t he suf f i ci ency of t he evi dence f or hi s

convi ct i on on t wo count s of money l aunder i ng under 18 U. S. C.

1957, ar gui ng t hat t he st at ut e appl i es onl y t o t he t r ansmi ssi on

-40-


41/55

of pr of i t s f r omi l l egal acti vi t y, not t o t he t r ansmi ssi on of gr oss

r ecei pt s, and t hat t he gover nment f ai l ed t o pr ove he t r ansmi t t ed

prof i t s . 11 We have di scussed Lyons' s pr eservat i on of hi s

suf f i ci ency cl ai ms and t he st andar d of r evi ew f or such cl ai ms

above. We r epeat t hat we vi ew Lyons' s ar gument s as l i kel y

pr eser ved by hi s general mot i on. Agai n, t hough, we need not

f or mal l y resol ve t he pr eservat i on i ssue because, even r evi ewi ng t he

chal l enge de novo, i nt er pr et i ng t he evi dence i n t he l i ght most

f avor abl e t o t he ver di ct , Lyons' s ar gument f ai l s.

Sect i on 1957( a) pr ovi des ( and pr ovi ded i n 2006 when t he

t r ansmi ss i ons at i ssue her e wer e made) t hat " [ w] hoever . . .

knowi ngl y engages or at t empt s t o engage i n a monetary t r ansact i on

i n cr i mi nal l y der i ved pr oper t y of a val ue gr eat er t han $10, 000"

vi ol at es t he l aw i f t he f unds ar e "der i ved f r omspeci f i ed unl awf ul

acti vi t y. " "Speci f i ed unl awf ul acti vi t y" i s def i ned as a vi ol at i on

of any of t he st at ut es or t ypes of st at ut es l i st ed i n 18 U. S. C.

1956( c) ( 7) . "' Cr i mi nal l y der i ved pr oper t y' " i s "any pr oper t y

11 Lyons' s br i ef i ncl udes some di scussi on of t he di st r i ctcour t ' s i nst r uct i ons t o t he j ur y on t hi s subj ect and hi s obj ect i ont o t hem. The cour t ' s i nst r uct i ons, however , woul d be r el evant onl yi f Lyons wer e seeki ng a new t r i al r at her t han a r ever sal of t hedi st r i ct cour t ' s deni al of hi s Rul e 29 mot i on and he has chosen nott o do so. Lyons' s st atement of t he i ssues, argument summary, and

t he por t i on of hi s br i ef deal i ng wi t h t hi s count al l make cl eart hat he has chosen t o onl y chal l enge t he suf f i ci ency of t heevi dence. I f t hi s had si mpl y been a case of uncl ear draf t i ng,Lyons presumabl y woul d have expl ai ned i n hi s r epl y br i ef t hat hei nt ended t o ar gue i nst r uct i onal er r or as wel l as suf f i ci ency of t heevi dence. But he di d not , even af t er t he gover nment , i n i t s br i ef ,poi nt ed out t he l i mi t ed scope of hi s appeal .

-41-


42/55

const i t ut i ng, or der i ved f r om, pr oceeds obt ai ned f r om a cr i mi nal

of f ense. " 18 U. S. C. 1957( f ) ( 2) . Unt i l a def i ni t i on of

"pr oceeds" was added to sect i on 1956 i n 2009, t he t er m was

undef i ned. See Fr aud Enf orcement and Recover y Act of 2009, Pub L.

No. 111- 21 2, 123 Stat . 1617. The 2009 amendment was a response

t o Uni t ed St at es v. Sant os, 553 U. S. 507 ( 2008) , whi ch i nt er pr et ed

t he wor d "pr oceeds" i n a cl osel y rel at ed st at ut e, 18 U. S. C. 1956,

t o ref er onl y t o t he prof i t s f rom i l l egal act i vi t y, rat her t han

gr oss r ecei pt s. The government does not di sput e t hat t he word

"pr oceeds" meant "pr of i t s" i n sect i on 1957 as wel l as sect i on 1956

pr i or t o 2009.

Sant os f ur t her expl ai ned, however , t hat t o pr ove a

def endant t r ansmi t t ed "pr of i t s . . . t he pr osecut i on needs t o show

onl y t hat a si ngl e i nst ance of speci f i ed unl awf ul act i vi t y was

pr of i t abl e and gave r i se t o the money i nvol ved i n a char ged

t r ansact i on. " I d. at 520. I f t he under l yi ng cr i me can be

accompl i shed t hr ough a si ngl e t r ansact i on t hen t he pr osecut i on need

not show t hat t he pr of i t s f r om t hat par t i cul ar act wer e not of f set

by l osses el sewher e i n t he cr i mi nal conspi r acy, but must i nst ead

onl y show t hat t he par t i cul ar t r ansact i on char ged consi st ed of at

l east $10, 000 i n pr of i t s. I d. Lyons does not di sput e t hat 18

U. S. C. 1957, whi ch cr i mi nal i zes "a monet ar y t r ansact i on" t hat

meet s cer t ai n cr i t er i a, can be vi ol at ed by a si ngl e act . Ther e was

t heref ore no need f or t he gover nment t o pr ove that SOS as a whol e

-42-


43/55

was pr of i t abl e i n or der t o convi ct Lyons under t hat st at ut e. Al l

t he government needed t o pr ove was t hat t he pr oceeds of t he

par t i cul ar t r ansact i ons char ged i n t he i ndi ct ment wer e "pr of i t s" of

"speci f i ed unl awf ul act i vi t y. " Sant os, 553 U. S. at 520 n. 7.

Ther e was suf f i ci ent evi dence f or such a f i ndi ng. Lyons

was acqui t t ed of money l aunder i ng on al l but t wo count s, each of

whi ch was based on t r ansf ers f r om Lyons' s cust omer Thomas

Bel ekewi cz. The i ndi ct ment descr i bes t he under l yi ng cr i me si mpl y

as " unl awf ul gambl i ng act i vi t y" wi t hout speci f yi ng a par t i cul ar

st at ut e ( besi des sect i on 1957) t hat t he t r ansf er s vi ol at ed.

However , t he pr evi ous sect i on of t he i ndi ct ment , chargi ng money

l aunder i ng under sect i on 1956, speci f i es t hat t he under l yi ng cr i me

of "i l l egal gambl i ng act i vi t y" was a vi ol at i on of 18 U. S. C. 1955

( t he same st at ut e at i ssue i n Sant os) , whi ch cr i mi nal i zes oper at i on

of an i l l egal gambl i ng busi ness, and 18 U. S. C. 1084, t he Wi r e

Act . Vi ol at i ons of bot h st at ut es ar e "speci f i ed unl awf ul act i vi t y"

as t hat t er m i s def i ned under 18 U. S. C. 1957( f ) ( 3) because they

ar e of f enses l i st ed i n 18 U. S. C. 1961( 1) , and t her ef or e f i t t he

def i ni t i on of unl awf ul gambl i ng act i vi t y by 18 U. S. C.

1956( c) ( 7) ( A) .

Bel ekewi cz t est i f i ed t hat he and hi s busi ness par t ner Ed

Dohert y pl aced bets on spor t i ng event s usi ng t he t el ephone or

i nt er net . By r ecei vi ng such bet s, SOS vi ol at ed t he Wi r e Act . 18

U. S. C. 1084( a) . On November 17, 2005, f ol l owi ng Lyons' s

-43-


44/55

i nst r uct i ons, Bel ekewi cz at t empt ed t o t r ansf er $20, 381 t o

Benevol ence Fundi ng, a company cont r ol l ed by Robert Eremi an. Thi s

t r ansf er const i t ut ed SOS' s pr of i t s f r om i t s vi ol at i on of t he Wi r e

Act by r ecei vi ng bet s f r om Bel ekewi cz and Doher t r y because the

t r ansf er r epr esent ed t he di f f er ence bet ween Bel ekewi cz' s wi nni ngs

and l osses over t hose bet s. Si mi l ar l y, an $86, 656 t r ansf er ( al so

made per Lyons' s i nst r uct i ons) was " t he accumul at i on of a f ew

weeks" of Bel ekewi cz' s l osses and so const i t ut ed SOS pr of i t s.

Ther e was t her ef or e suf f i ci ent evi dence f or a r easonabl e j ury t o

convi ct Lyons on each money l aunder i ng count because t he evi dence

was suf f i ci ent t o show t hat , on bot h occasi ons, Lyons caused t he

t r ansmi ssi on or at t empt ed t r ansmi ssi on of at l east $10, 000 i n

pr of i t s f r om unl awf ul act i vi t y. The f act t hat Lyons or SOS may

have l ost money on other bets does not i nsul ate Lyons f r om

l i abi l i t y f or t hese char ged bet s.

10. Lyons's Travel Act Convictions

Lyons chal l enges t he suf f i ci ency of t he evi dence f or hi s

convi ct i on on f our count s of vi ol at i ng t he Tr avel Act , 18 U. S. C.

1952, on t he same gr ounds upon whi ch he chal l enged hi s money

l aunder i ng convi ct i ons. Lyons was convi ct ed of f our count s of

"t r avel [ l i ng] i n i nt er st at e or f or ei gn commer ce or us[ i ng] t he mai l

or any f aci l i t y i n i nt er st at e or f or ei gn commer ce, wi t h i nt ent t o

. . . di st r i but e t he pr oceeds of . . . any busi ness ent er pr i se

i nvol vi ng gambl i ng. " 18 U. S. C. 1952( a) , ( b) . The i ndi ct ment

-44-


45/55

char ged f our speci f i c i nst ances i n 2005 i n whi ch Lyons sent money

t o Ant i gua vi a FedEx. Lyons ar gues t hat t here was no evi dence

t hese t r ansact i ons const i t ut ed p

united states v. lyons, 1st cir. (2014)

Documents