Not a Lexis+ subscriber? Try it out for free.

Experience a New Era in Legal Research with Free Access to Lexis+

United States v. Adams

United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

October 10, 2019, Argued; April 7, 2020, Decided

No. 18-3650

Opinion

 [*243]  Richard J. Sullivan, Circuit Judge:

Defendant-Appellant David Adams appeals from a judgment of conviction entered on November 27, 2018, in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut (Vanessa L. Bryant, Judge), following his guilty plea to assorted tax offenses, including making and subscribing to a false tax return, tax evasion, and attempting to interfere with the administration of the internal revenue laws. Adams raises six contentions, including that the district court erred in denying his motion to withdraw his guilty plea, in calculating the tax loss for purposes of sentencing, and in imposing an order of restitution [*244]  that commenced immediately upon his sentencing. We conclude that Adams is correct that the district court lacked authority to require restitution payments to begin immediately following sentencing. In all other respects, however, Adams's claims are unavailing. We therefore [**3]  affirm the district court's judgment as modified.

I. Background

The district court was justified in finding the following facts, based on Adams's statements under oath during his plea allocution and the facts set forth in the presentence investigation report ("PSR"), which was adopted by the district court without substantial objection from Adams at sentencing. Over the course of at least 14 years, Adams engaged in a concerted campaign to obstruct the IRS's efforts to collect his delinquent tax payments and to secure overdue tax returns. He lied to and manipulated his accountant, filed extension requests containing false information, claimed to have made payments that he had not made, missed deadlines, lied that checks were in the mail, unjustifiably blamed his accountant for errors and delays, bounced checks, and fraudulently claimed financial distress at times when he had the funds necessary to pay his tax liability, all the while spending lavishly on a lifestyle that included purchasing and leasing multiple luxury vehicles, spending millions to construct a mansion in East Lyme, Connecticut, and staying at upscale hotels.

A grand jury eventually charged Adams in a six-count superseding [**4]  indictment. Counts One, Three, and Five charged Adams with making and subscribing to false tax returns for the years 2009, 2011, and 2012, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2 and 26 U.S.C. § 7206(1). Counts Two and Four charged Adams with tax evasion in 2011 and 2012, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2 and 26 U.S.C. § 7201. Count Six charged Adams with attempting to interfere with the administration of the internal revenue laws, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2 and 26 U.S.C. § 7212(a).

Read The Full CaseNot a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.

955 F.3d 238 *; 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 10818 **

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appellee, v. DAVID M. ADAMS, Defendant-Appellant.

Prior History:  [**1] Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut. No. 16-cr-86, Vanessa L. Bryant, Judge.

Defendant-Appellant David Adams challenges his conviction and sentencing following his guilty plea on assorted tax offenses. He asserts six claims for relief, including that the district court (Vanessa L. Bryant, J.) erred in denying his motion to withdraw his guilty plea, in calculating the tax loss, and in imposing restitution. We conclude that Adams is correct that the district court lacked authority to require restitution payments to begin immediately following his sentencing. In all other respects, however, Adams's claims are unavailing. We therefore affirm the district court's judgment as modified. In reaching this determination, we hold that, in assessing tax loss pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2T1.1 application note 1, the district court was permitted to rely on uncharged relevant conduct constituting "willful evasion of payment" in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7201 and "willful failure to pay" in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7203.

United States v. Adams, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3492 (D. Conn., Jan. 8, 2019)

Disposition: AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED.

CORE TERMS

restitution, sentencing, fine, maximum, imprisonment, obstructive, evasion, calculation, consecutively, Guidelines, willfully, enhancement, jeopardy, accrued, double, modify, twice, delinquent, indictment, vacate

Criminal Law & Procedure, Entry of Pleas, Guilty Pleas, Appeals, Standards of Review, Plain Error, Guilty Pleas, Allocution & Colloquy, Appeals, Clear Error Review, De Novo Review, Sentencing, Sentencing Guidelines, Business & Corporate Compliance, Tax Credits & Liabilities, Civil Penalties, Failure to Pay Tax, Tax Law, Federal Tax Administration & Procedures, Interest on Assessments & Penalties, Sentencing Guidelines, Adjustments & Enhancements, Plain Error, Adjustments & Enhancements, Obstruction of Justice, Restitution, Supervised Release, Appellate Jurisdiction, Authority of Appellate Court, Tax Law, Criminal Offenses & Penalties, Commencement of Criminal Proceedings, Double Jeopardy, Double Jeopardy Protection, Double Jeopardy Protection, Tests for Double Jeopardy Protection, Reviewability, Preservation for Review, Failure to Object, Abuse of Discretion, Proportionality & Reasonableness Review, Imposition of Sentence, Factors, Preliminary Proceedings, Pretrial Motions & Procedures, Disqualification & Recusal