USCA11 Case: 22-14074 Document: 115-1 Date Filed: 06/21/2024 Page: 1 of 54
`
`
`
`[DO NOT PUBLISH]
`
`In the
`United States Court of Appeals
`For the Eleventh Circuit
`
`
`
`
`
`____________________
`
`No. 22-14074
`
`____________________
`
`
`UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
`
`versus
`
`PETER TARANTINO,
`TODD CHRISLEY,
`a.k.a. Michael Todd Chrisley,
`JULIE CHRISLEY,
`
`
` Plaintiff-Appellee,
`
` Defendants-Appellants.
`
`
`____________________
`
`Appeals from the United States District Court
`for the Northern District of Georgia
`
`
`
`
`
`[DO NOT PUBLISH]
`
`In the
`United States Court of Appeals
`For the Eleventh Circuit
`
`
`
`
`
`____________________
`
`No. 22-14074
`
`____________________
`
`
`UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
`
`versus
`
`PETER TARANTINO,
`TODD CHRISLEY,
`a.k.a. Michael Todd Chrisley,
`JULIE CHRISLEY,
`
`
` Plaintiff-Appellee,
`
` Defendants-Appellants.
`
`
`____________________
`
`Appeals from the United States District Court
`for the Northern District of Georgia
`
`
`
`USCA11 Case: 22-14074 Document: 115-1 Date Filed: 06/21/2024 Page: 2 of 54
`
`2
`
`Opinion of the Court
`
`22-14074
`
`D.C. Docket No. 1:19-cr-00297-ELR-JSA-3
`____________________
`
`Before ROSENBAUM, NEWSOM, and TJOFLAT, Circuit Judges.
`
`PER CURIAM:
`
`This criminal appeal revolves around three defendants and
`two schemes: tax evasion and bank fraud.
`
`The tax-evasion scheme involved all three defendants. De-
`fendant Michael Todd Chrisley1 (“Todd”) owed back taxes. Rather
`than directing his income payments into a personal account, which
`the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) could have found and used to
`satisfy his back taxes, the Chrisleys hid Todd’s income payments in
`an account that Defendant Julie Chrisley owned. And as soon as
`the IRS started looking into accounts Julie owned, the Chrisleys
`transferred that account to yet another family member. Mean-
`while, the Chrisleys’ accountant, Defendant Peter Tarantino, made
`false statements to federal agents to keep the IRS off the trail. This
`conduct, and more described below, resulted in convictions for tax
`evasion and conspiracy to defraud the IRS.
`
`As for the bank-fraud scheme, the Chrisleys and Todd’s prior
`business partner sent fabricated financial documents to banks when
`they applied for loans, loan renewals, and lines of credit. These
`
`
`1 Because this case involves several people whose last name is Chrisley, to
`avoid confusion, we use these individuals’ first names when we speak of one
`of them. We refer collectively to Todd and Julie as “the Chrisleys.”
`
`
`
`USCA11 Case: 22-14074 Document: 115-1 Date Filed: 06/21/2024 Page: 3 of 54
`
`22-14074
`
`Opinion of the Court
`
`3
`
`false financial statements grossly overrepresented the Chrisleys’ as-
`sets to make the applications more attractive to banks.
`
`After a joint trial, the jury convicted all three defendants on
`all counts, and the district court sentenced them. The defendants
`now raise several issues on appeal. First, the Chrisleys argue that
`the district court erred in denying their motion to suppress certain
`electronic evidence. Second, the Chrisleys assert their convictions
`for bank fraud, tax evasion, and conspiracy to defraud the IRS were
`based on insufficient evidence. Third, all three defendants seek a
`new trial or evidentiary hearing based on the prosecution’s failure
`to correct allegedly false testimony. Fourth, Julie asserts that the
`district court erred in sentencing her by holding her accountable
`for the loss amount of the entire bank-fraud scheme. Fifth, the
`Chrisleys challenge the restitution and forfeiture money judgments
`against them. And sixth, Tarantino argues that the district court
`abused its discretion in declining to sever his case from the Chris-
`leys’.
`
`After careful consideration, and with the benefit of oral ar-
`gument, we affirm the district court on all issues except for the loss
`amount attributed to Julie. The district court did not identify the
`evidence it relied on to hold Julie accountable for losses incurred
`before 2007, and we cannot independently find it in the record. So
`we vacate Julie’s sentence and remand solely for the district court
`to make the factual findings and calculations necessary to deter-
`mine loss, restitution, and forfeiture as to Julie and to resentence
`her accordingly.
`
`
`
`USCA11 Case: 22-14074 Document: 115-1 Date Filed: 06/21/2024 Page: 4 of 54
`
`4
`
`Opinion of the Court
`
`22-14074
`
`I.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`A grand jury returned a superseding indictment charging the
`
`Chrisleys with bank fraud, tax evasion, and various conspiracy
`counts. Julie was also charged with wire fraud and obstruction of
`justice. As for Tarantino, the indictment charged him with aiding
`the filing of false tax returns, as well as conspiring to defraud the
`IRS with the Chrisleys.
`
`After nearly three weeks of trial and three days of delibera-
`tions, the jury found the three defendants guilty on all counts. The
`district court sentenced Todd to 144 months’ imprisonment, Julie
`to 84 months’ imprisonment, and Tarantino to 36 months’ impris-
`onment. The court also ordered the Chrisleys, jointly and sever-
`ally, to pay $17,270,741.57 in restitution and the same amount in
`forfeiture. The court ordered Tarantino to pay a $35,000 fine.
`
`A. The Trial Evidence
`
`We summarize the relevant trial evidence, in the light most
`favorable to the government. United States v. Duenas, 891 F.3d
`1330, 1333 (11th Cir. 2018).
`
`i. Evidence Related to Tax-evasion Counts
`
`Todd (but not Julie) owed over $500,000 in taxes for the 2009
`tax year. That year, Todd had filed a married-filing-separately tax
`return, which meant the IRS could (generally) collect against only
`Todd and not against Julie as to that amount.
`
`
`
`USCA11 Case: 22-14074 Document: 115-1 Date Filed: 06/21/2024 Page: 5 of 54
`
`22-14074
`
`Opinion of the Court
`
`5
`
`While that tax debt was still due and owing, in 2013, the
`Chrisleys were hired to make a reality television show called Chris-
`ley Knows Best. The Chrisleys’ attorney testified that the show’s
`production company required the Chrisleys to set up a loan-out
`company to receive payments on the Chrisleys’ behalf. Successful
`artists and entertainers use loan-out corporations for the financial
`benefits their structure allows. Bozzio v. EMI Grp. Ltd., 811 F.3d
`1144, 1147 (9th Cir. 2016). More specifically, a loan-out corpora-
`tion “is a duly organized corporation, typically wholly owned by
`an artist, the sole function of which is to ‘loan out’ the services of
`the artist-owner to producers and other potential employers. The
`form offers limited personal liability and beneficial tax treatment.”
`Id. (quoting Aaron J. Moss & Kenneth Basin, Copyright Termination
`and Loan-Out Corporations: Reconciling Practice and Policy, 3 Harv. J.
`Sports & Ent. L. 55, 72 (2012)) (cleaned up).
`
`The Chrisleys created a loan-out company called 7C’s Pro-
`ductions (“7C’s”), in the form of a Subchapter S corporation. The
`IRS describes Subchapter S corporations as “corporations that elect
`to pass corporate income, losses, deductions, and credits through
`to their shareholders for federal tax purposes. Shareholders of S
`corporations report the flow-through of income and losses on their
`personal tax returns and are assessed tax at their individual income
`tax rates. This allows S corporations to avoid double taxation on
`the
`corporate
`income.”
`
`corporations,
`IRS,
`S
`https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-em-
`ployed/s-corporations [https://perma.cc/FKS3-95MW].
`
`
`
`USCA11 Case: 22-14074 Document: 115-1 Date Filed: 06/21/2024 Page: 6 of 54
`
`6
`
`Opinion of the Court
`
`22-14074
`
`The Chrisleys set up 7C’s in Julie’s name. Julie had sole sig-
`nature authority over the 7C’s bank account. The production com-
`pany paid the Chrisleys for their performances on the television
`show by sending checks for each recipient to 7C’s, care of the indi-
`vidual who rendered the services. Once the money was in the 7C’s
`account, Todd and Julie controlled payment to the other family
`members who appeared on the show.
`
`To be clear, even though the 7C’s account was in Julie’s
`name, the government presented testimony that Todd had access
`to the account. Evidence also showed that Todd shared control
`over the account. For example, Todd emailed someone associated
`with production and said, “[W]e . . . need to make sure that the
`payments for this second season are paid directly to 7C’s and not
`to the individual so as to give us the control to deal with [my kids]
`when they don’t want to work[.]” A mortgage broker who inter-
`acted with the Chrisleys even testified that Todd told him that “his
`wife owned” 7C’s but Todd “controlled the business.”
`
`The prosecution argued that the defendants used the 7C’s
`account to hide Todd’s income from the IRS because the account
`was in Julie’s name, and Todd’s tax liabilities from 2009 were
`against him alone as an individual filer. To show the 7C’s bank
`account hid Todd’s income, the prosecution presented evidence of
`personal expenses that were paid out of the account, including pay-
`ments for Chick-fil-A, utility bills, shopping, and vacations. And
`FBI Special Agent Steve Ryskoski testified that the bank statements
`gave the appearance that Todd and Julie were using the 7C’s
`
`
`
`USCA11 Case: 22-14074 Document: 115-1 Date Filed: 06/21/2024 Page: 7 of 54
`
`22-14074
`
`Opinion of the Court
`
`7
`
`account as a personal account. IRS Officer Betty Carter also testi-
`fied that, based on the 7C’s bank statements, she deduced that the
`Chrisleys were living off the 7C’s account. She testified that she
`saw a lot of personal expenses paid through the 7C’s account and
`“very little activity through the personal accounts.”
`
`During this same period, the Chrisleys did not file their
`2013–2016 tax returns or pay taxes for those tax years, even though
`the government sent the Chrisleys and Tarantino publications ex-
`plaining the importance of paying tax liabilities. It wasn’t until Feb-
`ruary 2018—only after the Chrisleys became aware they were un-
`der criminal investigation by the IRS—that they filed and began
`paying taxes for those years.
`
`In the meantime, in September 2016, Tarantino spoke with
`IRS revenue officer Agnes Jagiella to discuss Todd’s outstanding tax
`liabilities. Officer Jagiella testified that Tarantino falsely told her
`that Julie had no interest in 7C’s, but rather, the Chrisleys’ daughter
`owned 100% of the company. And then, Officer Jagiella testified,
`Tarantino refused to tell her which daughter. After this conversa-
`tion between Officer Jagiella and Tarantino, Tarantino emailed
`Todd and Julie a summary of the call and said that Officer Jagiella
`“asked some questions about your current living arrangements,
`etc. I avoided answering them.”
`
`On another occasion, Tarantino told Officer Carter he did
`not know where the Chrisleys banked, even though he had their
`Bank of America log-in information.
`
`
`
`USCA11 Case: 22-14074 Document: 115-1 Date Filed: 06/21/2024 Page: 8 of 54
`
`8
`
`Opinion of the Court
`
`22-14074
`
`Officer Carter and Tarantino also discussed the Chrisleys on
`March 1, 2017. During that conversation, Officer Carter requested
`bank statements and canceled checks for all bank accounts on
`which Todd had signature authority. Tarantino complied.
`
`Then, five days later, on March 6, Tarantino told the Chris-
`leys that the IRS sent a follow-up request seeking bank statements
`and canceled checks for all accounts on which Todd or Julie had
`signature authority. Todd responded by telling Julie, “Get this
`taken care of asap.”
`
`The next day, Julie transferred ownership of the 7C’s bank
`account to Elizabeth Faye Chrisley (“Faye”), Todd’s mother. A
`new 7C’s bank account was also opened in Faye’s name. Faye tes-
`tified that she never ran 7C’s and did not even know a company
`was associated with the 7C’s bank account. The same day Julie
`transferred ownership of the bank account to Faye, Todd emailed
`his talent agent—copying Julie—and said, “Please refrain from
`sending any deposits to the account you have on file as that account
`has been compromised, we will be sending you another NEW ac-
`count number tomorrow or Thursday morning.” With these ar-
`rangements taken care of, Tarantino then sent the account infor-
`mation for the first 7C’s bank account to the IRS, but he did not
`mention that the account changed owners or that the Chrisleys’
`future payments would all be to a new account.
`
`More than ten months passed before January 18, 2018, when
`Tarantino emailed draft tax returns to the Chrisleys for 2013–2016.
`In doing so, Tarantino explained that he would be forwarding the
`
`
`
`USCA11 Case: 22-14074 Document: 115-1 Date Filed: 06/21/2024 Page: 9 of 54
`
`22-14074
`
`Opinion of the Court
`
`9
`
`draft returns to a Bentley dealership and a bank the following day.
`The next day, as promised, Tarantino sent the draft returns to
`those third parties. But his email to those companies did not ex-
`plain that the documents were drafts that hadn’t been filed. In-
`stead, it simply said, “I have attached the last three years of personal
`and business tax filings.” After that, on January 23, Tarantino sent
`a reminder to the Chrisleys to sign off on the draft returns so he
`could officially file them.
`
`On February 2, 2018, FBI and IRS-Criminal Investigation
`special agents interviewed Tarantino. Tarantino did not tell the
`agents he had recently sent draft tax returns to third parties. And
`it wasn’t until after this interview that the Chrisleys finally filed
`their late returns for 2013–2016.
`
`Separately, Tarantino also filed 7C’s corporate tax returns
`for 2015 and 2016, falsely claiming that the company earned zero
`dollars and made zero distributions during that period. In reality,
`7C’s earned revenue in 2015 and 2016.
`
`ii. Evidence Related to Bank-fraud Counts
`
`From the mid-2000s through 2012, Todd owned a company
`called Chrisley Asset Management (“CAM”). His CAM business
`partner, Mark Braddock, testified at trial with immunity, explaining
`how the bank-fraud scheme worked.
`
`Braddock helped the Chrisleys obtain loans and lines of
`credit for CAM from financial institutions by submitting applica-
`tions with false information about the Chrisleys’ income and assets.
`
`
`
`USCA11 Case: 22-14074 Document: 115-1 Date Filed: 06/21/2024 Page: 10 of 54
`
`10
`
`Opinion of the Court
`
`22-14074
`
`For example, evidence showed that in 2007, when Todd tried to
`obtain unsecured lines of credit from a bank, the bank requested
`personal account statements for Todd as a guarantor. So Braddock
`sent Todd a document titled, “Your Merrill Lynch Report,” show-
`ing that Todd and Julie had $776,509.52 deposited at Merrill Lynch.
`In fact, though, the Chrisleys never had more than $17,000 at Mer-
`rill Lynch during the relevant period. Todd responded to Brad-
`dock’s doctored document with, “you are a f[]ing genious!!!! just
`make it show 4 mil+.” This interaction set the stage for the addi-
`tional bank fraud that followed.
`
`The government introduced emails and documents Brad-
`dock sent to banks on the Chrisleys’ behalf. These communica-
`tions contained misrepresentations like the one above: for instance,
`that the Chrisleys had $3.6–$4 million in assets at Merrill Lynch.
`But Merrill Lynch’s records show no member of the Chrisley fam-
`ily had even close to $4 million in an account.
`
`The government also presented an email chain where a
`bank requested financial information. Braddock emailed Todd, “I
`don’t have financials on any of these.” And Todd responded, “stop
`telling me this shit, create them like you always have, if I don’t get
`her these then they [won’t] renew the loans.”
`
`During Braddock’s testimony, the prosecution asked Brad-
`dock directly, “[D]id you commit fraud from 2007 onward just on
`your own? In other words, was it just you committing fraud?”
`Braddock answered, “No. Mr. and Mrs. Chrisley and myself were
`all three involved.”
`
`
`
`USCA11 Case: 22-14074 Document: 115-1 Date Filed: 06/21/2024 Page: 11 of 54
`
`22-14074
`
`Opinion of the Court
`
`11
`
`The government also introduced other evidence against Ju-
`lie with respect to the bank-fraud scheme. Braddock testified that
`in 2012, Julie emailed a scanned image of a check and bank state-
`ment to Braddock and Todd, and wrote, “Post date is the only
`thing that needs to be changed.” Braddock made that edit and sub-
`mitted it to the bank, with Julie’s awareness. Braddock also testi-
`fied that Julie’s nickname was “ass[] [is] on fire” because she drove
`all over town paying off late-due loan amounts. He said that he
`and Julie “talked about the personal financial statements” and
`about “scrapbooking,” which was their term for editing documents
`with false information. Evidence also showed two fraudulently ob-
`tained loans from 2007 and 2008 were issued to Julie’s own com-
`pany, Select Real Estate Holdings.
`
`Besides the conviction for conspiracy to commit bank fraud,
`the jury convicted the Chrisleys of five counts of substantive bank
`fraud involving Midtown Bank (Count 2), GulfSouth Private Bank
`(Count 3), United Community Bank (Count 4), RBC Bank USA
`(Count 5), and Wells Fargo (Count 6).
`
`For Counts 2 and 4 (Midtown and United Community
`Banks), the government produced witnesses from the victim
`banks, who testified that “[i]t was very important” for Todd’s per-
`sonal financial statement to include accurate information because
`it affected “the strategy in how we dealt with [the applied-for] loan
`and the other loans that the borrower had”; false financial infor-
`mation would “influence decision making on whether or not to re-
`new certain loans”; it was “pretty important” to receive accurate
`
`
`
`USCA11 Case: 22-14074 Document: 115-1 Date Filed: 06/21/2024 Page: 12 of 54
`
`12
`
`Opinion of the Court
`
`22-14074
`
`information on personal financial statements because “that’s how
`[they] assess the risk on whether to approve a loan or not”; and one
`of the banks required updated financial statements every twelve
`months to decide whether to continue the credit facility and be-
`cause it was required to evaluate the risk level of each loan.
`
`Besides the testimony from the employees of two of the vic-
`tim banks, the government offered evidence from a former vice
`president of Buckhead Community Bank, who said “a bank does
`rely on” personal finance statements “to see what your debt to in-
`come ratio is. So it’s very important to make a loan decision.” The
`former president and CEO of Embassy National Bank also testified
`that he would have wanted to know if Todd didn’t actually have
`the amount in marketable securities that he represented.
`
`Unlike for the banks in Counts 2 and 4, no employee-wit-
`nesses testified from GulfSouth, RBC Bank USA, or Wells Fargo.
`To support the three substantive bank-fraud counts involving
`those banks (Counts 3, 5, and 6), the government relied on evi-
`dence that Braddock emailed a personal financial statement reflect-
`ing inflated assets to GulfSouth and WellsFargo on behalf of Todd,
`copying Todd. And Braddock emailed a false document to RBC
`Bank on an accountant’s letterhead representing that the account-
`ant had audited financial information for CAM when in fact the ac-
`countant had not.
`
`
`
`USCA11 Case: 22-14074 Document: 115-1 Date Filed: 06/21/2024 Page: 13 of 54
`
`22-14074
`
`Opinion of the Court
`
`13
`
`B. Procedural History
`
`Before trial, and relevant to this appeal, the Chrisleys timely
`filed two motions to suppress evidence. The first, filed in Decem-
`ber 2019, sought to suppress the evidence that federal agents seized
`from the Georgia Department of Revenue (“Georgia DOR”). The
`second relevant motion to suppress, which the Chrisleys filed a
`couple months later in February 2020, sought to “suppress evi-
`dence seized pursuant to the search warrants for emails and elec-
`tronically stored information.” Unlike the first motion, this second
`motion did not mention the Georgia DOR search.
`
`The district court granted the first motion to suppress and
`denied the second. So the evidence from the warehouse search was
`suppressed, but the evidence from the electronically stored infor-
`mation (“ESI”) searches was not.
`
`More than two years later—and ten days after the deadline
`for filing motions in limine had passed—the Chrisleys filed a “Mo-
`tion to Require the United States to Establish Admissibility of Sup-
`pressed Evidence” as to the evidence the government collected
`through the ESI warrants and all evidence the FBI and IRS col-
`lected. The district court denied that motion as untimely, stating
`that it had already decided the issue of whether the evidence col-
`lected through the ESI warrants was admissible when it denied the
`motion to suppress electronic evidence.
`
`The parties proceeded to trial. The Chrisleys contend that
`they had paid off all taxes by the time of trial. While the prosecu-
`tion filed a declaration from Officer Carter stating that the
`
`
`
`USCA11 Case: 22-14074 Document: 115-1 Date Filed: 06/21/2024 Page: 14 of 54
`
`14
`
`Opinion of the Court
`
`22-14074
`
`Chrisleys continued to make tax payments even after trial ended,
`the parties do not now dispute that, at the time of trial, the Chris-
`leys owed nothing for tax years 2014 and 2015.2 Even so, Officer
`Carter testified at trial that the Chrisleys still owed money for 2010,
`2011, 2014, 2015, and 2016.
`
`Almost two weeks after Officer Carter’s testimony, but still
`during trial, the Chrisleys produced documents to the government
`reflecting payments the Chrisleys had made to the IRS. In re-
`sponse, that same day, IRS Agent Brock Kinsler emailed Officer
`Carter asking about one of the payments described in the Chrisleys’
`document production. The two of them discovered that a pay-
`ment the Chrisleys made in January 2022 towards 2016 taxes had
`not been applied to the couple’s outstanding balance. Apparently,
`Agent Kinsler recalled telling the prosecutors about this email ex-
`change on the morning of June 1, 2022. Conversations between
`the Chrisleys’ accountant and Officer Carter from three weeks after
`trial show further payments that the Chrisleys made to the IRS but
`that the IRS database had not yet applied to the Chrisleys’ balance
`at the time Officer Carter testified that they still had outstanding
`liabilities. In the end, then, it turned out that at the time of Officer
`Carter’s testimony, the Chrisleys did not owe any taxes for at least
`2014 or 2015. In other words, Officer Carter’s testimony that the
`
`2 Defendants argue that, at the time of trial, the Chrisleys did not owe taxes
`for any tax year before 2017. But the district court pointed out that the Chris-
`leys were still making payments for tax years 2010, 2011, and 2016 several
`months after trial ended. No matter. We will assume the Chrisleys’ versions
`of the facts because it does not alter the analysis or its result.
`
`
`
`USCA11 Case: 22-14074 Document: 115-1 Date Filed: 06/21/2024 Page: 15 of 54
`
`22-14074
`
`Opinion of the Court
`
`15
`
`Chrisleys still owed money for at least those two tax years was in-
`correct.
`
`At the end of the trial, the jury found all three defendants
`guilty on all counts in which they were charged. The Chrisleys had
`a joint sentencing hearing, where the district court accepted the
`government’s loss calculations. Those loss calculations supported
`the Chrisleys’ base offense levels, restitution amounts, and forfei-
`ture amounts. The district court allowed defense counsel two
`weeks after the final restitution and forfeiture orders were dock-
`eted to file any motions to amend those orders. Defense counsel
`did not file any motion to amend either order.
`
`Each defendant filed a motion for a new trial. The Chrisleys
`argued that certain evidence should have been excluded and that
`the government unlawfully failed to correct Officer Carter’s testi-
`mony that the Chrisleys still owed back taxes as of the time of trial.
`Tarantino moved for a new trial on the ground that he allegedly
`suffered compelling prejudice because of the district court’s deci-
`sion not to sever his case. Tarantino had previously filed a pre-trial
`motion to sever, which was denied.
`
`The district court denied each motion in a short order before
`the sentencing hearing and then issued its full opinion about six
`weeks after defendants timely filed this appeal.
`
`II. DISCUSSION
`
`We divide our discussion into six parts. First, we address
`whether the district court erred by denying the Chrisleys’ motion
`
`
`
`USCA11 Case: 22-14074 Document: 115-1 Date Filed: 06/21/2024 Page: 16 of 54
`
`16
`
`Opinion of the Court
`
`22-14074
`
`to suppress electronic evidence. Second, we consider whether suf-
`ficient evidence supported the Chrisleys’ convictions on multiple
`counts. Third, we assess whether the district court abused its dis-
`cretion in declining to grant a new trial or hold a hearing on the
`prosecution’s failure to correct Officer Carter’s testimony. Fourth,
`we discuss whether the district court erred in holding Julie account-
`able for the loss amount of the entire bank-fraud conspiracy. Fifth,
`we address whether the district court committed procedural error
`when ordering restitution and forfeiture as to the Chrisleys. And
`sixth, we consider whether the district court abused its discretion
`in declining to sever Tarantino’s case.
`
`A. The district court did not abuse its discretion in hold-
`ing that the motion to suppress electronic evidence was
`untimely.
`
`The Chrisleys argue that the district court abused its discre-
`tion when it denied their “Motion to Require the United States to
`Establish Admissibility of Suppressed Evidence.” We disagree.
`
`As an initial matter, even though the Chrisleys styled their
`filing as a “Motion to Require the United States to Establish Admis-
`sibility of Suppressed Evidence,” it was, in reality, a motion to sup-
`press. That’s so because it argued that the government’s acquisi-
`tion of the challenged evidence violated the Chrisleys’ Fourth
`Amendment rights, and it sought to prevent the government from
`using that evidence, even though that evidence had not been sup-
`pressed. For these reasons, the law governing motions to suppress
`controls our review.
`
`
`
`USCA11 Case: 22-14074 Document: 115-1 Date Filed: 06/21/2024 Page: 17 of 54
`
`22-14074
`
`Opinion of the Court
`
`17
`
`When a district court denies a motion to suppress evidence
`because it is untimely, we review for abuse of discretion. United
`States v. Smith, 918 F.2d 1501, 1509 (11th Cir. 1990).
`
`A defendant who wishes to move to suppress evidence must
`do so before trial. Fed. R. Crim. P. 12(b)(3)(C). A district court has
`authority to set a deadline for motions to suppress under Federal
`Rule of Criminal Procedure 12(c). A motion to suppress is consid-
`ered untimely if the defendant files it after the deadline, but courts
`may consider the motion “if the party shows good cause.” Fed. R.
`Crim. P. 12(c)(3).
`
`In this case, the district court gave the Chrisleys until De-
`cember 20, 2019, to file motions to suppress. Given the timing of
`the government’s ESI search warrants, the court separately al-
`lowed the Chrisleys until February 28, 2020, to file any motions to
`suppress evidence from those searches. As we’ve noted, the Chris-
`leys timely filed two motions to suppress that are relevant to this
`appeal.
`
`The first motion related to a search of Todd’s warehouses.
`Back in March 2017, the Georgia DOR improperly seized hard-
`copy documents from one of Todd’s warehouses without a war-
`rant. Federal agents later obtained a federal search warrant allow-
`ing them to seize those documents from the Georgia DOR. This
`first motion to suppress sought to exclude evidence that federal
`agents seized from the Georgia DOR that the Georgia DOR, in
`turn, had originally obtained through the warrantless warehouse
`search.
`
`
`
`USCA11 Case: 22-14074 Document: 115-1 Date Filed: 06/21/2024 Page: 18 of 54
`
`18
`
`Opinion of the Court
`
`22-14074
`
`The second motion sought to exclude evidence collected un-
`der ESI search warrants. The motion argued that the ESI search
`warrants were overbroad.
`
`Neither motion asserted that evidence the government ob-
`tained through the ESI warrants was derived from the warehouse
`search. And more specifically, at no point did the motion to sup-
`press ESI evidence suggest that the federal government wouldn’t
`have investigated the Chrisleys’ emails but for the suppressed
`Georgia DOR documents or that the government based its ESI
`warrant applications on tainted information that the agents had
`only because of the documents that the Georgia DOR illegally ob-
`tained (the “fruit-of-the-poisonous-tree argument”). Instead, over
`two years later and ten days after the deadline for motions in
`limine, the Chrisleys filed a new motion seeking to exclude ESI ev-
`idence as fruit of the poisonous tree.
`
`The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying this
`motion as untimely. The Chrisleys’ motion violated the district
`court’s deadlines for both suppression motions and motions in
`limine.
`
`We are not persuaded by the Chrisleys’ argument that the
`
`order granting the motion to suppress evidence collected from the
`warehouse warrants and any evidence derived from the warehouse war-
`rants covered the evidence the government collected through the
`ESI warrants so that they didn’t need to file a motion to suppress
`the ESI evidence. Motions to suppress “must in every critical re-
`spect be sufficiently definite, specific, detailed, and nonconjectural
`
`
`
`USCA11 Case: 22-14074 Document: 115-1 Date Filed: 06/21/2024 Page: 19 of 54
`
`22-14074
`
`Opinion of the Court
`
`19
`
`to enable the court to conclude that a substantial claim is pre-
`sented.” United States v. Richardson, 764 F.2d 1514, 1527 (11th Cir.
`1985). And here, the motion to suppress evidence from the ware-
`house warrant, which was titled, “[Defendants’] Motion to Sup-
`press Evidence Seized Pursuant to Search Warrants Executed at
`4125 Welcome All Road and 1800 Century Boulevard NE,” never
`mentioned the ESI warrants or electronic evidence at all.
`
`What’s more, the Chrisleys filed an entirely separate motion
`to suppress the evidence from the ESI warrants, implicitly drawing
`a distinction between the two types of evidence. So the district
`court did not abuse its discretion in construing its own order grant-
`ing the motion to suppress evidence from the warehouse warrants
`as not covering evidence collected through the ESI warrants.
`
`B. Sufficient evidence supports the Chrisleys’ convictions.
`
`The Chrisleys raise several challenges to the sufficiency of
`the evidence supporting their convictions. This section takes each
`in turn. First, we consider whether sufficient evidence supported
`the Chrisleys’ tax-evasion convictions. Second, we address
`whether sufficient evidence supported the Chrisleys’ convictions
`for conspiracy to defraud the IRS. Third, we discuss whether suffi-
`cient evidence underlies the three substantive bank-fraud convic-
`tions where no employee from the victim banks testified. And
`fourth, we assess whether sufficient evidence supports Julie’s con-
`victions on the substantive bank-fraud counts.
`
`
`
`USCA11 Case: 22-14074 Document: 115-1 Date Filed: 06/21/2024 Page: 20 of 54
`
`20
`
`Opinion of the Court
`
`22-14074
`
`We review de novo the sufficiency of the evidence, “taking
`the evidence in the light most favorable to the government and
`drawing all reasonable inferences in favor of the jury’s verdict.”
`Duenas, 891 F.3d at 1333. We won’t set aside a jury verdict “if there
`is ‘any reasonable construction of the evidence [that] would have
`allowed the jury to find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable
`doubt.’” United States v. Martin, 803 F.3d 581, 587 (11th Cir. 2015)
`(quoting United States v. Friske, 640 F.3d 1288, 1291) (11th Cir.
`2011)).
`
`i. Tax Evasion
`The elements of federal tax evasion under 26 U.S.C. § 7201
`include “(1) willfulness; (2) existence of a tax deficiency; and (3) an
`affirmative act constituting an evasion or attempted evasion of
`tax.” United States v. Kaiser, 893 F.2d 1300, 1305 (11th Cir. 1990).
`“An affirmative act of attempted evasion may consist of ‘any con-
`duct, the likely effect of which would be to mislead’ the Govern-
`ment or conceal funds to avoid payment of a valid tax defi-
`ciency.” United States v. Hesser, 800 F.3d 1310, 1323 (11th Cir. 2015)
`(citation omitted).
`
`The Chrisleys argue that the government failed to prove an
`affirmative act amounting to tax evasion. As the Chrisleys see
`things, the prosecution’s entire theory was that the Chrisleys used
`7C’s bank accounts to conceal Todd’s income, but the money in
`7C’s bank accoun
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
