Feb 4, 2020 — Akbar Fard appeals his convictions and 36-month total sentence for six counts of wire fraud, along with the district court’s forfeiture and
47 KB – 8 Pages
PAGE – 1 ============
[DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 18 -13621 Non -Argument Calendar ________________________ D.C. Docket No. 8:17 -cr -00131 -VMC -SPF -1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff -Appellee, versus AKBAR GHANEH FARD, Defendant -Appellant. ________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida ________________________ (Feb ruar y 4, 2020 ) Before GRANT , TJOF LAT and BLACK , Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Case: 18-13621 Date Filed: 02/04/2020 Page: 1 of 8
PAGE – 2 ============
2 Akbar Fard appeals his convictions and 36 -month total sentence for six counts of wire fraud, along with the district court™s forfeiture and restitution orders . Fard contends the Government failed to present su fficient evidence to sustain his convictions for wire fraud, specifically that it failed to show he made material misrepresentations to government agencies when applying for research funding. In addition, Fard a sserts the district court erred in calculati ng the loss suffered by government agencies because he performed under the contracts, and thus, the agencies suffered no pecuniary loss. Fard argues t his lack of harm to the agencies also results in the court™s orders of forfeiture and restitution being i n err or. After review, we affirm the district court. I. DISCUSSION A. Sufficiency of the Evidence To prove wire fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1343, the government must establish that the defendant (1) intentionally participated in a scheme to defraud and (2) used the interstate wires in furtherance of the scheme. United States v. Langford , 647 F.3d 1309, 13 20 (11th Cir. 2011). fiA scheme to defraud requires proof of material misrepresentations, or the omission or concealment of material facts, . . . reasonably calculated to deceive persons of ordinary prudence. fl United States v. Hasson , 333 F.3d 1264, 1270 -71 (11th Cir. 2003) (internal citation omitted) . A material misrepresentation is one having a natural tendency to influence the Case: 18-13621 Date Filed: 02/04/2020 Page: 2 of 8
PAGE – 3 ============
3 decision maker. Id. at 1271. We held that a fischeme to defraudfl requires the intention to harm the victim, distinguishing it from a fischeme to deceivefl the victim, but not harm them. United States v. Takhalov , 827 F.3d 1307 (11th Cir. 2016), abrogated on other grounds by United States v. Takhalov , 83 8 F.3d 1168 (11th Cir. 2016) . The district court did not err in denying Fard™s motion for judgment of acquittal as s ufficient evidence supports his convictions. See United States v. Browne , 505 F.3d 1229, 1253 (11th Cir. 2007) (stating w e review de novo the denial of a motion for judgment of acquittal on sufficiency grounds , viewing the evidence fiin the light most favorable to the Government, drawing all reasonable inferences and credibility choices in the Government™s favorfl ). Throughou t the trial, the jury heard how Fard was warned that lying in the proposals was illegal, and how the contracting officers relied on the statements made by Fard, they negotiated with Fard to ensure the budgets and research met the agencies™ needs, and enter ed a final agreement, which required modifications to be made with the contracting officers. See i d. (stating w e will affirm a district court™s denial of a motion for judgment of acquittal if a reasonable jury could conclude that the evidence establishes the defendant™s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt , and t his standard does not require the evidence to be inconsistent with every reasonable hypothesis other than guilt, but rather, the jury may choose between reasonable Case: 18-13621 Date Filed: 02/04/2020 Page: 3 of 8
PAGE – 4 ============
4 conclusions based on the evidence ). Further, the jury heard from Special Agent Mazzella about how the awards were Advanced Material Technology, Inc.™s (AMTI™s ) only source of income, Fard™s spending was inconsistent with the information in the budgets, and Fard diverted approximately 70 percent of the funds awarded to AMTI. From the combination of Fard™s obligations and actual spending, the Government presented sufficient evidence to show that Fard had made material misrepresentations to the agencies. See Hasson , 333 F.3d at 1270 -71. From his success in obtaining the awards, the jury could also conclude that Fard™s statements had the natural tendency of influencing those in charge of granting the a wards. See id. at 1271. Additionally, the jury could conclude the agencies were harmed and did not receive the benefits of their bargaining with Fard. From both NASA and the Navy representatives, the jury heard how Fard™s intenti onal misrepresentations resulted in the agencies awarding funds they otherwise would not have, thereby undermining the purpose of the programs to stimulate innovation and economic growth. See Takhalov , 827 F.3d at 1312 -13. Accordingly, the district court did not err in denying Fard™s motion for judgment of acquittal. See Browne , 505 F.3d at 1253; Langford , 647 F.3d at 1320. B. Loss Amount The 2016 Sentencing Guidelines specifies a 1 4-level enhancement to a base offense level for a fraud offense involving a loss amount of more than $ 550,000 , Case: 18-13621 Date Filed: 02/04/2020 Page: 4 of 8
PAGE – 5 ============
5 but less than $ 1.5 million. U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(1)(H). Although the government must support its loss calculation, the guidelines do not require a precise determination of loss. United States v. Barrington , 648 F.3d 1178, 1197 (11th C ir. 2011). When the case involves government benefits, such as grants, loans, or entitle ment program payments, the guidelines require the loss be considered finot less than the value of the benefits obtained by unintended recipients or diverted to unintend ed uses.fl U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1 , comment. (n.3(F)(ii)). I n determining the scope of a figovernment benefit,fl we have reasoned that programs that focus mainly on who is doing the work, rather than on the work being produced constitute fientitlement programs.fl See United States v. Maxwell , 579 F.3d 1282, 130 6 (holding affirmative action municipal programs constituted government benefits under the sentencing guidelines). The district court did not err in its application of the government benefit provision or clearly err in its loss calculation. See id. at 130 5 (reviewing a district court™s interpretation of the sentencing guidelines de novo , and the determination of the am ount of loss involved in the offense for clear error ). The district court concluded that Maxwell governed the issues discussed in sentencing and found that the Small Business Innovation Research and Small Business Transfer Technology Research programs constitute d government benefits. Regarding whether Fard™s conduct fell within the scope of the provision, the district court applied the loss Case: 18-13621 Date Filed: 02/04/2020 Page: 5 of 8
PAGE – 6 ============
6 calculation for the amount Fard diverted. Thoug h not explicit in its finding of whether Fard was an unintended recipient or only used the funds for unintended purposes, the court heard reasonable grounds for either as the Government distinguished awarding funds to AMTI, not Fard, and Fard™s conduct dem onstrated the awards were used for unintended purposes. U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1, comment. (n.3(F)(ii)) . Regardless of which justification the court relied on, the court™s determination of loss on either basis was not clearly erroneous . See Maxwell , 579 F.3d at 1305. The district court heard from both the Navy and NASA how Fard™s conduct undermined the purpose of providing the research funding to small business es and, in the case of the Navy, created a question as to the veracity of Fard™s work. A ccordingly, the district court did not err in interpreting the Guidelines or make a mistake indicative of a clear error in calculating the loss. See United States v. Rothenberg , 610 F.3d 621, 624 (11th Cir. 2010) ( stating we will conclude a finding of fac t is clearly erroneous only if left with a fidefinite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committedfl) ; U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1, comment. (n.3(F)(ii)). C. Forfeiture and Restitution We have recognized that forfeiture and restitution are separate concepts serving different goals. See United States v. Hoffman -Vaile , 568 F.3d 1335, 1344 (11th Cir. 2009) (rejecting the argument that appellant™s forfeiture amount should Case: 18-13621 Date Filed: 02/04/2020 Page: 6 of 8
PAGE – 8 ============
8 agencies suffered harm because of those misrepresentations. Additionally, the district court did not err in calculating the loss resulting from Fard™s actions as the harm Fard caused outweighed any benefit he provided the agencies. Because the loss calculation was the only basis on which Fard challenged the forfeiture and restitution orders, his arguments are meritless . Accordingly, we affirm. AFFIRMED. Case: 18-13621 Date Filed: 02/04/2020 Page: 8 of 8
47 KB – 8 Pages