32 F.

3d 611

UNITED STATES of America, Appellee,

v.
Darrell F. PIERRO, Defendant, Appellant.
No. 93-1313.

United States Court of Appeals,

First Circuit.
Heard June 6, 1994.
Decided July 27, 1994.

Elliot M. Weinstein, Boston, MA, for appellant.

Michael K. Loucks, Asst. U.S. Atty., with whom Donald K. Stern, U.S.
Atty., Boston, MA, was on brief, for U.S.
Before SELYA, Circuit Judge, CAMPBELL, Senior Circuit Judge, and
LAGUEUX,* District Judge.
SELYA, Circuit Judge.

Defendant-appellant Darrell F. Pierro labors to convince us that the district

court erred in refusing to grant him a separate trial, in refusing to declare a
mistrial, and, following his conviction, in refusing to reduce his sentence
beneath the suggested guideline range. We are not persuaded by appellant's
exhortations and, therefore, affirm.

I. BACKGROUND
2

At the times material hereto, appellant earned his livelihood as a vice-president

of the Moore Group (MoGro), a California company. Yielding to temptation,
he also joined a criminal cartel that, during the years 1989 and 1990, engaged in
the theft and subsequent resale of computer components manufactured by and
for Digital Equipment Corporation (DEC). This scheme functioned on three
levels. The initial step involved the thefts--a step in which appellant at first did
not participate. The second step involved the sale of the stolen equipment; with
appellant's connivance, his employer, MoGro, purchased much of the

contraband.1 The third step involved the purchasers' disposal of the bootleg
merchandise.
3

For its part, MoGro, under appellant's aegis, handled this third phase in two
ways. It returned some components to DEC, after altering their serial numbers,
as part of an established exchange program, thus converting stolen, often
unusable components into new, state-of-the-art equipment. It resold the rest of
the components on credit terms to a Wisconsin firm, and then pledged the
invoices as security for bank loans. MoGro used the loan proceeds, inter alia, to
pay the thieves for the stolen merchandise.

From and after late 1989, appellant assumed an active role in the looting of
DEC's warehouse. On several occasions, he and fellow MoGro employees
(including John McComas) flew from California to Massachusetts and assisted
in the unlawful asportation of computer components. These purloined parts
subsequently were shipped to MoGro's California headquarters and disposed of
by one of the two methods we have described.

In early 1990, appellant and several confederates were spotted inside DEC's
warehouse, fled, and were eventually apprehended. Subsequently, a federal
grand jury returned a 158-count indictment against 16 persons. It charged
appellant with conspiracy to participate in a racketeering enterprise, see 18
U.S.C. Sec. 1962(d), participating in a racketeering enterprise, see id. Sec.
1962(c), and money laundering, see id. Sec. 1956(a)(1). The predicate acts
upon which the RICO charges rested included both money laundering and
interstate transportation of stolen property, see 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2314.

In response to a clutch of severance motions, including one filed to appellant's

behoof, the district court split the defendants into two groups for purposes of
trial. The court's order called for appellant and seven other alleged
coconspirators (including McComas, Kleinerman, and Ruslan Moore, MoGro's
president) to be tried together, but apart from the other eight defendants. On
September 8, 1992, trial commenced for most members of appellant's group.2
During the trial, the court denied appellant's renewed severance motion and his
motion for a mistrial. The jury found appellant guilty on all counts. The court
sentenced him to serve 121 months in prison. This appeal followed.

II. THE ALLEGED TRIAL ERRORS

7

Appellant contends that the district court erred in denying his renewed motion
for severance and his motion to declare a mistrial. We examine each of these

contentions.
8A. The Severance Motion.
9

We need not linger long over the question of severance. "As a rule, persons who
are indicted together should be tried together." United States v. O'Bryant, 998
F.2d 21, 25 (1st Cir.1993). We have said that to overcome this presumption a
properly joined defendant--and, clearly, joinder was proper here, see
Fed.R.Crim.P. 8(b)--must muster "a strong showing of evident prejudice."
O'Bryant, 998 F.2d at 25. When the term is used in this context, "prejudice
means more than just a better chance of acquittal at a separate trial." United
States v. Boylan, 898 F.2d 230, 246 (1st Cir.) (citation omitted), cert. denied,
498 U.S. 849, 111 S.Ct. 139, 112 L.Ed.2d 106 (1990). Indeed, the Supreme
Court has been blunter still, stating that when multiple defendants are named in
a single indictment, separate trials should not be ordered unless "there is a
serious risk that a joint trial would compromise a specific trial right of one of
the defendants or prevent the jury from making a reliable judgment about guilt
or innocence." Zafiro v. United States, --- U.S. ----, ----, 113 S.Ct. 933, 938, 122
L.Ed.2d 317 (1993).

10

On appeal, Pierro does not challenge the district court's pretrial order
segmenting the defendants into two groups for purposes of trial. However, he
complains bitterly about the district court's refusal to grant his mid-trial motion
for severance--a device by which he sought to put some distance between
himself and Kleinerman. The motion rested on twin rationales: first,
Kleinerman's testimony about a litany of "bad acts" which had nothing to do
with appellant; second, Kleinerman's courtroom antics, which, appellant
alleges, reflected adversely on all the defendants. We bifurcate this complaint,
considering these grounds separately.

11

1. Spillover. The first aspect of appellant's argument amounts to a claim of

spillover prejudice. To prevail on such a claim, a defendant must prove
prejudice so pervasive that a miscarriage of justice looms. See United States v.
Sabatino, 943 F.2d 94, 96-97 (1st Cir.1991); Boylan, 898 F.2d at 246. We have
carefully reviewed the record and discern no prejudice to appellant above and
beyond the quantum of prejudice that typifies virtually any multi-defendant
trial--and that sort of prejudice clearly does not justify a severance. See United
States v. Walker, 706 F.2d 28, 30 (1st Cir.1983).

12

To be sure, Kleinerman testified about a bogus burglary he staged at his home

and about telling another witness that she should have dissembled when
appearing before the grand jury. This testimony, like other bits and pieces of

evidence about which appellant complains, while unsavory, was not in any way
antagonistic to appellant's defense. And nothing implicated appellant in the
peccadilloes; to the contrary, the evidence suggested he was on the other side of
the continent both when Kleinerman faked the break-in and when Kleinerman
attempted to suborn perjury. Since it is settled that properly joined defendants
need not be severed merely because a joint trial will require that the jury
receive testimony--even a large amount of testimony--irrelevant to one
defendant, see Boylan, 898 F.2d at 246, we are not at liberty to second-guess
the district court's denial of appellant's motion, see id.
13

Although perhaps supererogatory in light of the foregoing, we also take note of

the trial court's exemplary handling of the situation. The court carefully
controlled the presentation of the proof, making the jury keenly aware that
certain evidence was limited to particular defendants, and that, in all events, the
evidence had to be considered separately against each defendant. In the first
instance, a reviewing court must presume that the jury heeded these
prophylactic instructions. See United States v. Olano, --- U.S. ----, ----, 113
S.Ct. 1770, 1781, 123 L.Ed.2d 508 (1993); United States v. Paiva, 892 F.2d
148, 160 (1st Cir.1989). Here, there is no basis to suppose that the jurors
disregarded the trial judge's admonitions and departed on a frolic of their own.

14

2. Kleinerman's Behavior. Appellant also assigns error to the district court's

denial of a severance based on what he calls Kleinerman's "cheerleading"
during the trial testimony of various witnesses. The conduct that appellant
attributes to Kleinerman--mostly gestures and grimaces--obviously occurred;
indeed, the district judge found Kleinerman in contempt for his courtroom
antics.

15

If, during the course of a multi-defendant criminal trial, a defendant

misbehaves in the jury's presence, the misbehavior usually will not compel a
separate trial for his codefendants. See, e.g., United States v. Rocha, 916 F.2d
219, 230 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 500 U.S. 934, 111 S.Ct. 2057, 114 L.Ed.2d
462 (1991); United States v. Tashjian, 660 F.2d 829, 837-38 (1st Cir.), cert.
denied, 454 U.S. 1102, 102 S.Ct. 681, 70 L.Ed.2d 646 (1981). Unless a movant
can demonstrate the existence of some special prejudice of a kind or to a degree
not susceptible to remediation by prompt curative instructions, the district court
is free to eschew a severance and let the trial proceed.

16

Applying this standard, we do not think that Kleinerman's pantomime,

regrettable though it was, required the nisi prius court to grant a severance. In
our view, this situation parallels--but is much less noxious than--other situations
in which courts have concluded that well-chosen, well-timed curative

instructions will satisfactorily ameliorate the adverse effects of a defendant's

inappropriate behavior on his codefendants.3 See, e.g., Rocha, 916 F.2d at 230;
Tashjian, 660 F.2d at 838; United States v. Smith, 578 F.2d 1227, 1236 (8th
Cir.1978); United States v. Marshall, 458 F.2d 446, 452 (2d Cir.1972); cf.
United States v. Mazza, 792 F.2d 1210, 1224-25 (1st Cir.1986) (finding no
unfair prejudice to codefendants arising out of a defendant's disruptive behavior
even though a curative instruction was neither requested nor given), cert.
denied, 479 U.S. 1086, 107 S.Ct. 1290, 94 L.Ed.2d 147 (1987). So it is here:
there was no cognizable prejudice present.4
17

3. Recapitulation. Trial courts are afforded considerable leeway in determining

severance questions. See O'Bryant, 998 F.2d at 25; Boylan, 898 F.2d at 246.
Consequently, a judge's resolution of such questions "will be overturned only if
that wide discretion is plainly abused." United States v. Natanel, 938 F.2d 302,
308 (1st Cir.1991), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 112 S.Ct. 986, 117 L.Ed.2d 148
(1992). We see no vestige of any abuse in this instance.

B. The Motion for a Mistrial.

18
19

After 18 days of trial, the government negotiated a plea agreement with

McComas and, after McComas pled guilty, called him as a prosecution witness.
Appellant immediately moved in limine to bar McComas from testifying. The
district court denied that motion. Appellant subsequently moved for a mistrial,
arguing that McComas's abrupt change of plea, followed by potentially
incriminating testimony, would be unfairly prejudicial. The district court
refused to grant the requested relief. Appellant assigns error.

20

Motions to declare mistrials are directed primarily to the district court's

discretion, see United States v. Sepulveda, 15 F.3d 1161, 1185 (1st Cir.1993),
cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 114 S.Ct. 2714, 129 L.Ed.2d 840 (1994); United
States v. De Jongh, 937 F.2d 1, 3 (1st Cir.1991); and, accordingly, an appellate
tribunal ought not to interfere with the disposition of such a motion unless the
complaining party can demonstrate a manifest abuse of that discretion. Bearing
in mind the trial judge's superior point of vantage, this precept possesses
particular force when, as now, a motion for mistrial is based on a claim that
some spontaneous development at trial may have influenced the jury in an
improper manner.

21

Of course, this does not mean that appellate courts should reflexively rubberstamp the trier's refusal to declare a mistrial. But because mistrials are strong
medicine, disruptive not only to the parties but also to the judiciary's efforts to
manage crowded dockets, it is only rarely--and in extremely compelling

circumstances--that an appellate panel, informed by a cold record, will venture

to reverse a trial judge's on-the-spot decision that the interests of justice do not
require aborting an ongoing trial. See Real v. Hogan, 828 F.2d 58, 62 (1st
Cir.1987); see also Sepulveda, 15 F.3d at 1184. Hence, battles over the need for
a mistrial most often will be won or lost in the district court.
22

As a general matter, a mistrial is not automatically required when a codefendant

changes his plea in mid-trial. See, e.g., United States v. Del Carmen Ramirez,
823 F.2d 1, 3 (1st Cir.1987); United States v. Earley, 482 F.2d 53, 58 (10th
Cir.), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 1111, 94 S.Ct. 841, 38 L.Ed.2d 738 (1973). That
principle obtains even when the newly pleaded defendant takes the witness
stand and testifies against the remaining defendants. See United States v.
Gambino, 926 F.2d 1355, 1364 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 501 U.S. 1206, 111 S.Ct.
2800, 115 L.Ed.2d 973 & --- U.S. ----, 112 S.Ct. 415, 116 L.Ed.2d 436 (1991);
see also United States v. Kilrain, 566 F.2d 979, 982-83 (5th Cir.), cert. denied,
439 U.S. 819, 99 S.Ct. 80, 58 L.Ed.2d 109 (1978). In such a situation, the court
ordinarily can proceed with the trial after appropriately instructing the jury
concerning the change of plea and the newly proffered testimony. See
Gambino, 926 F.2d at 1364. It is only when some special circumstance creates
unfair prejudice, not realistically curable by appropriate instructions, that the
court must declare a mistrial.5 See id.; see also Kilrain, 566 F.2d at 983.

23

Appellant asserts that this case evades the usual rule because special
circumstances exist. He points to the fact that the three "MoGro defendants"-appellant, McComas, and Moore--had been pursuing a common defense, and
that McComas's change of plea and his ensuing testimony knocked the pins out
from under this defense.6 He adds, moreover, that the deleterious side effects of
Kleinerman's misbehavior, see supra Part II(A)(2), furnished a further basis for
a mistrial.

24

We do not believe that this jeremiad derives sufficient support from the record.
The trial judge found no cognizable prejudice, and close perscrutation of the
transcript fails to shake this finding. At any rate, given the highly deferential
standard of review, we are not prepared to second-guess the finding based on
appellant's self-interested speculation.7

III. THE ALLEGED SENTENCING ERROR

25

To place appellant's final assignment of error into proper perspective, we divide

this portion of our analysis into three sections. First, we rehearse the sentencing
calculus.8 Second, we discuss the question of appellate jurisdiction. Third, we
consider the substance of the claimed error.

A. The Sentence.
26
27

The district court classified the counts of convictions as comprising two groups,
see U.S.S.G. Sec. 2E1.1, comment. (n.1), one for interstate transportation of
stolen property, see 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2314, and one for money laundering, see 18
U.S.C. Sec. 1956(a)(1).9 The judge determined that, under U.S.S.G. Sec.
2B1.2(a), the first group had a base offense level (BOL) of 4. The court then
added 15 levels for bringing about a loss in excess of $2,500,000 (but less than
$5,000,000), see U.S.S.G. Sec. 2B1.1(b)(1)(P); 4 levels for engaging regularly
in the business of buying and selling stolen property, see U.S.S.G. Sec.
2B1.2(b)(4)(A); and 3 levels for performing a managerial role in the offense,
see U.S.S.G. Sec. 3B1.1(b). These calculations yielded an adjusted offense level
of 26.

28

The judge performed a similar set of computations for the second group of
convictions. He determined that this group revolved around money laundering
and, therefore, used U.S.S.G. Sec. 2S1.1(a)(1) to fix the BOL at 23.10 The
judge then added 7 levels because the value of the laundered funds exceeded
$3,500,000, see U.S.S.G. Sec. 2S1.1(b)(2)(H), bringing the adjusted offense
level to 30.

29

Since the second group produced a substantially higher adjusted offense level
than the first group, the district court, following the praxis specified by the
Sentencing Commission, see U.S.S.G. Sec. 2E1.1(a), set the first series of
computations to one side and, instead, added 2 levels to the second group's
adjusted offense level, pursuant to section 3D1.4, thus bringing the final offense
level to 32. This produced a guideline sentencing range (GSR) of 121-151
months for a first-time offender. The court imposed an incarcerative sentence at
the bottom of the range.

30

On appeal, Pierro concedes that these calculations are supportable, but claims
that the lower court erred in not venturing a downward departure premised on
"mitigating circumstances." See 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3553(b) (providing, inter alia,
for departures if the court ascertains that there exists a "mitigating circumstance
of a kind, or to a degree, not adequately taken into consideration by the
Sentencing Commission in formulating the guidelines that should result in a
sentence different from that described [in the GSR]"); U.S.S.G. Sec. 5K2.0
(implementing statute). The government demurs.

B. Appellate Jurisdiction.
31
32

As a matter of first principles, an appellate court is duty bound to confirm the

32

As a matter of first principles, an appellate court is duty bound to confirm the

existence of its own jurisdiction. See Juidice v. Vail, 430 U.S. 327, 331, 97
S.Ct. 1211, 1215, 51 L.Ed.2d 376 (1977); Mansfield, Coldwater & Lake Mich.
Ry. Co. v. Swan, 111 U.S. 379, 382, 4 S.Ct. 510, 511-12, 28 L.Ed. 462 (1884);
In re Dein Host, Inc., 835 F.2d 402, 404 (1st Cir.1987). We do so here.

33

It is by now axiomatic that a criminal defendant cannot ground an appeal on a

sentencing court's discretionary decision not to depart below the guideline
sentencing range. See, e.g., United States v. Tardiff, 969 F.2d 1283, 1290 (1st
Cir.1992); United States v. Amparo, 961 F.2d 288, 292 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, -- U.S. ----, 113 S.Ct. 224, 121 L.Ed.2d 161 (1992); United States v. Hilton, 946
F.2d 955, 957 (1st Cir.1991); United States v. Romolo, 937 F.2d 20, 22 (1st
Cir.1991). This rule, however, admits of certain exceptions. One such exception
applies when the sentencing court's declination to depart results from a mistake
of law. See Amparo, 961 F.2d at 292; Hilton, 946 F.2d at 957. Consequently,
"appellate jurisdiction may attach if it appears that the failure to depart
stemmed from the sentencing court's mistaken impression that it lacked the
legal authority to deviate from the guideline range or, relatedly, from the court's
misapprehension of the rules governing departures." United States v. Gifford,
17 F.3d 462, 473 (1st Cir.1994).

34

Counsel often confuse the exception and the rule. If the judge sets differential
factfinding and evaluative judgments to one side, and says, in effect, "this
circumstance of which you speak, even if it exists, does not constitute a legally
sufficient basis for departure," then the correctness of that quintessentially legal
determination may be tested on appeal. But if the judge says, in effect, either
that "this circumstance of which you speak has not been shown to exist in this
case," or, alternatively, that "while this circumstance of which you speak might
exist and might constitute a legally cognizable basis for a departure in a
theoretical sense, it does not render this particular case sufficiently unusual to
warrant departing," then, in either such event, no appeal lies.

35

We think that this case fits within the exception rather than the rule, and, hence,
that we have jurisdiction to consider the assigned error. At the disposition
hearing, appellant identified three possible grounds for departure, namely, (1)
that his case was, in essence, a sheep in wolves' clothing--a garden-variety
theft-of-property case, treated by the guidelines as a money laundering case,
and, therefore, well outside the heartland of the money laundering guideline;
(2) that his GSR was skewed by "double counting"; and (3) that, if sentenced
within the GSR, his punishment would be vastly disproportionate to his
codefendants' sentences. The district court rejected all three bases for departure.
Read objectively, the district court seems to have said, in effect, that even if
appellant could prove the subsidiary facts upon which his arguments rested--

that his conviction grew out of a scheme to steal property rather than a scheme
to launder money, that double counting influenced the composition of the GSR,
and that his coconspirators received sentences milder than the GSR in his case
prophesied--none of the cited circumstances would constitute a legally
cognizable reason for imposing a sentence below the GSR. If the district court
erred in this determination, the error was a purely legal one. Thus, appellate
jurisdiction attaches.
C. The Merits.
36
37

We address separately appellant's claim that his conduct fell outside the
heartland of the money laundering statute, thereby justifying a downward
departure. We then proceed to examine appellant's remaining sentence-related
claims.

38

1. The Essence of the Offense. In analyzing appellant's "heartland" claim, we

first step back to review the anatomy of "mitigating circumstance" departures.
The method of the sentencing guidelines demands that, in the ordinary case, the
judge apply the guidelines, make such interim adjustments as the facts suggest,
compute a sentencing range, and then impose a sentence within that range. See
18 U.S.C. Sec. 3553(a), (b); see also United States v. Rivera, 994 F.2d 942, 946
(1st Cir.1993); United States v. Diaz-Villafane, 874 F.2d 43, 47-48 (1st Cir.),
cert. denied, 493 U.S. 862, 110 S.Ct. 177, 107 L.Ed.2d 133 (1989). Because
departures are the exception, rather than the rule, see Diaz-Villafane, 874 F.2d
at 52, "it is only in the extraordinary case--the case that falls outside the
heartland for the offense of conviction--that the district court may abandon the
guideline sentencing range and impose a sentence different from the sentence
indicated by mechanical application of the guidelines." United States v.
Jackson, 30 F.3d 199, 201 (1st Cir.1994); see also Rivera, 994 F.2d at 947-48.

39

When a sentencing court considers a "mitigating circumstance" departure, the

relevant circumstance must be of a kind cognizable under the guidelines, see
Rivera, 994 F.2d at 949, and must render the case "special" or "unusual," see id.
The determination of whether a particular circumstance is sufficiently "special"
or "unusual" to warrant departing presents a question of law, the determination
of which is reviewed de novo on appeal. See Jackson, 30 F.3d at 202; DiazVillafane, 874 F.2d at 49. In this case, we do not think that the relationship
between the statutes underlying appellant's several convictions constitutes a
mitigating circumstance upon which a departure can be predicated.

40

We accept appellant's two subsidiary premises. First, his involvement in money

laundering arose out of his use of proceeds from the sale of stolen property as

security for bank loans. See 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1956(a)(1)(A) (criminalizing the
conduct of a financial transaction with knowledge that the property involved in
the transaction represents the proceeds of specified forms of illegal activity).
Second, the Sentencing Commission has chosen to punish money laundering
with particular severity, and the introduction of the money laundering guideline
into the sentencing calculus therefore resulted in a markedly higher GSR and a
longer prison term for appellant, see supra Part III(A).
41

Be that as it may, we cannot accept the conclusion that appellant draws from
these two premises. The money laundering statute does not exempt from its
reach those persons who launder money merely in the furtherance of
underlying criminal activities. Nor does the statute, in terms, suggest that such
persons' actions perforce fall outside the statute's proper scope. On the contrary,
the crime colloquially known as money laundering is committed whenever a
person, "knowing that the property involved in a financial transaction
represents the proceeds of some form of unlawful activity" nevertheless
"conducts or attempts to conduct ... a financial transaction which in fact
involves [such] proceeds." 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1956(a)(1).

42

In our view, Congress meant this statute to address, among other things,
conduct undertaken subsequent to, although in connection with, an underlying
crime, rather than merely affording an alternative means of punishing the
underlying crime itself. See United States v. Johnson, 971 F.2d 562, 569 (10th
Cir.1992). Thus, our reading of the same statute recently led us to observe, in
countering an argument strikingly similar to that stitched together by Pierro,
that Congress "intended money laundering to be a separate crime distinct from
the underlying offense that generated the money." United States v. LeBlanc, 24
F.3d 340, 346 (1st Cir.1994). Other cases have reached essentially the same
conclusion. See, e.g., Johnson, 971 F.2d at 569 (stating that Congress designed
the money laundering statute to fill a lacuna "with respect to the post-crime
hiding of ill-gotten gains"); see also United States v. Edgmon, 952 F.2d 1206,
1214 (10th Cir.1991) (holding that principles of double jeopardy do not bar
prosecution and punishment for both money laundering and conversion based
on the same overall conduct), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 112 S.Ct. 3037, 120
L.Ed.2d 906 (1992).

43

There is little question that the appellant's conduct fits snugly within this
framework. Appellant argues that "although the facts which formed the
predicate for the convictions were within the strict linguistic parameters of the
sentencing guidelines for money laundering, the defendant's actual conduct did
not fall within [what the Sentencing Commission intended to punish as] money
laundering...." This is virtually a replica of the argument we rejected in

LeBlanc, 24 F.3d at 345.11 Because appellant's offense conduct, though arising

out of his participation in interstate transportation of stolen property, comes
well within the heartland of the money laundering statute and guideline, the
court below correctly concluded, as a matter of law, that it could not base a
downward departure on this circumstance. See LeBlanc, 24 F.3d at 347; see
also United States v. Limberopoulos, 26 F.3d 245, 249 (1st Cir.1994) (rejecting
analogous argument; holding that district court's view that defendant's conduct
fell within the heartland of a regulatory statute but outside the heartland of a
drug trafficking statute reflected a misunderstanding of the basic objectives of
the two statutes, their interplay, and their interposition vis-a-vis the sentencing
guidelines).
44

2. Remaining Bases for Departure. Appellant suggests two additional ways in

which the trial court appropriately could have departed downward. Neither
suggestion has any merit. 12

a.
45
46

First, appellant contends that a downward departure could have been predicated
on the fact that "double counting" boosted his GSR to heights not contemplated
by the Sentencing Commission. In this regard, appellant asserts that the same
money was factored into the sentencing court's computations twice--once in
calculating the offense level for money laundering and once in calculating the
offense level for interstate transportation of stolen property. We cannot accept
this assertion.

47

It is not at all clear that any double counting took place. As discussed above,
where an underlying crime occurs antecedent to money laundering, the offenses
are considered separate and distinct for sentencing purposes. This
distinctiveness requires that a separate computation be made for each group of
offenses. See United States v. Lombardi, 5 F.3d 568, 571 (1st Cir.1993)
(holding that an anomaly would result if a sentencing court were compelled to
treat mail fraud and money laundering in the same sentencing category).
Appellant dealt in stolen property having a value in excess of $2,500,000 and
also laundered over $3,500,000 in profits garnered from the resale of stolen
property. Hence, the punishment for engaging in each of these criminal
activities must be calculated independently. See id.

48

By the same token, each crime has its own measure of loss; the value of the
property stolen from DEC and the dollar amount of ill-gotten sale proceeds
used by MoGro to secure financial support may turn out to be the same, but
they are arrived at differently. The mere existence of some indeterminate

degree of overlap between these figures does not constitute double counting.
See, e.g., United States v. Lilly, 13 F.3d 15, 18 (1st Cir.1994) (holding that
overlapping uses of same data anent monetary loss did not constitute double
counting in the particular circumstances of the case).
49

To say more would be to trespass on the reader's indulgence. Even if the

situation here could be described in some useful way as comprising double
counting, the phenomenon is not sufficiently "special" or "unusual" to warrant a
downward departure. After all, in the sentencing context double counting is not
rare--and the practice is often perfectly proper. See id. at 19.

b.
50
51

The final circumstance on which appellant relies in support of a downward

departure is disproportionality--the comparative severity of his sentence as
contrasted with the sentences to be served by other coconspirators.13 The
district court believed that it lacked authority to depart on this basis. We
concur. See, e.g., United States v. Wogan, 938 F.2d 1446, 1448 (1st Cir.),
(holding that "a perceived need to equalize sentencing [among codefendants] ...
will not permit a departure"), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 112 S.Ct. 441, 116
L.Ed.2d 460 (1991); United States v. Carr, 932 F.2d 67, 73 (1st Cir.)
(explaining that judicial dissatisfaction with comparative outcomes cannot
justify departure), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 112 S.Ct. 112, 116 L.Ed.2d 82
(1991).

52

3. Need for Remand. The district court sentenced appellant in February 1993.
Approximately five months later, this court decided Rivera, 994 F.2d 942, a
case that elaborated the circuit's departure jurisprudence. Appellant invites us to
remand so that the district court may reexamine the sentence in light of Rivera.
We decline the invitation.

53

Building a body of precedent is an evolutionary process. If the mere fact that a

new opinion sheds light on an area of the law automatically required appellate
courts to remand for reconsideration all cases pending on direct appeal that
dealt with the same area of the law, the system would become a shambles.
Remand is required only when there is a realistic possibility that the new
precedent, properly applied, will alter or otherwise materially affect the result
reached in the trial court.14 See, e.g., Gifford, 17 F.3d at 475. Applying this
benchmark, there is no need to remand this case for resentencing.

54

When a newly minted precedent clarifies a corner of the law while a case

involving the same (or a closely related) point is pending on direct appeal, the
threshold question is almost always whether the trial court's analysis would
have differed in some material respect if it had had the benefit of the
clarification. Here, that question demands a negative answer: Judge Woodlock
fully anticipated our opinion in Rivera, carefully sifted the record to determine
whether any unusual circumstances existed that might warrant a downward
departure, and, discovering none, correctly abjured the desired departure.
Hence, a remand would serve no useful purpose as the analytic approach would
be essentially unchanged and would, therefore, produce the same conclusions.
See, e.g., United States v. Smith, 14 F.3d 662, 666 (1st Cir.1994) (affirming
district court's pre-Rivera refusal to depart under Rivera standard); see also
United States v. Sclamo, 997 F.2d 970, 974 (1st Cir.1993) (affirming preRivera downward departure and declining to remand for reconsideration in
light of Rivera).
55

We hasten to add that even when a district court has not fully anticipated an
emergent clarification, a remand will not necessarily follow. For example, when
the court's subsidiary findings of fact are reasonably explicit, unaffected by its
legal error, and subject to reuse, a remand would be an empty exercise. See
Societe des Produits Nestle v. Casa Helvetia, Inc., 982 F.2d 633, 642 (1st
Cir.1992). In such a situation, so long as the court of appeals can arrange the
untainted findings along the proper legal matrix, it need not remand. See
United States v. Mora, 821 F.2d 860, 869 (1st Cir.1987); see also FigueroaRodriguez v. Aquino, 863 F.2d 1037, 1041 (1st Cir.1988).

56

This principle offers an alternative basis for denying appellant's request for a
remand. Even if, without the benefit of Rivera, the district court's grasp of
departure jurisprudence proved faulty--and we do not believe that to have been
the case--a remand would not be exigible. For all the skillful lawyering that has
been mustered on appellant's behalf, he has been utterly unable to isolate any
"special" or "unusual" feature of this case which, under Rivera, could support a
downward departure.

IV. CONCLUSION
57

We need go no further. For aught that appears, appellant was fairly tried, justly
convicted, and appropriately sentenced. He has been unable to advance any
persuasive reason either for revising the outcome or for prolonging the
proceedings. The judgment below must, therefore, be

58

Affirmed.

*
1

Of the District of Rhode Island, sitting by designation

The thieves stole computer components from DEC's warehouse in
Massachusetts both during the week and on weekends. The components
purchased by MoGro comprised, for the most part, the bounty from the
weekend heists. The remaining contraband was sold mainly to a codefendant,
Fred Kleinerman

One of the eight defendants originally included in this cadre pled guilty prior to
trial

Kleinerman's misbehavior did not plummet to the depths reached in Rocha, 916
F.2d at 229 (a case in which a defendant mouthed a death threat and then ran a
finger menacingly across his throat during a witness's testimony), or in
Tashjian, 660 F.2d at 837 (a case in which a defendant gestured, mouthed
words to the effect that a government witness would receive five bullets in the
head, and shouted that all the defendants were "in the Mafia")

There is, moreover, an added fillip in this case that further erodes appellant's
position: his assumption that the jury must have been aware of Kleinerman's
antics is sheer speculation. Kleinerman's gestures were nonverbal, and the
judge did not comment on them in the jury's presence

We recognize that when a codefendant switches sides and becomes a

government witness, his testimony will likely help the government and harm
the remaining defendants. Indeed, this is often a strong incentive to the
government in the plea-bargaining process. But this sort of prejudice does not
necessitate a mistrial. It is only unfair prejudice against which courts must
guard. See, e.g., United States v. Rodriguez-Estrada, 877 F.2d 153, 156 (1st
Cir.1989); United States v. Ingraham, 832 F.2d 229, 233 (1st Cir.1987), cert.
denied, 486 U.S. 1009, 108 S.Ct. 1738, 100 L.Ed.2d 202 (1988)

Although three different lawyers represented the MoGro defendants, appellant

asseverates that the lawyers coordinated their opening statements and their
cross-examination of prosecution witnesses, and that they adopted a "unified
theme" in regard to challenging the government's proof and confronting its
witnesses. After McComas changed his plea, appellant alone was caught in the
toils; the third MoGro defendant, Moore, found sanctuary when the district
court granted his motion for judgment of acquittal, Fed.R.Crim.P. 29(a)

There is another reason why we are particularly reluctant to override the trier's
judgment call in this case. If any unfair prejudice sprouted--and we stress that

we have found no sign of any--we believe it would have been cured by the trial
judge's painstaking instructions. It strikes us as significant in this regard that
appellant has criticized neither the content nor timeliness of these instructions
8

The district court sentenced appellant in February of 1993, using the November
1992 edition of the sentencing guidelines. See United States v. Harotunian, 920
F.2d 1040, 1041-42 (1st Cir.1990) (explaining that the guidelines in effect at
the time of sentencing control unless ex post facto considerations prohibit their
use). Hence, all references herein are to that edition

Since "racketeering comes in many shapes and sizes, and covers a wide range
of activities," United States v. Winter, 22 F.3d 15, 19 (1st Cir.1994), a
sentencing court must look to the predicate crimes to establish the guideline
sentencing range, see U.S.S.G. Sec. 2E1.1(a)(2). In this case, the predicate
offenses are interstate transportation of stolen property and money laundering

10

For purposes of computing the sentencing range, it is unnecessary to distinguish

between the substantive money laundering offenses and money laundering as a
RICO predicate

11

In LeBlanc, following convictions for, inter alia, illegal gambling activities and
money laundering, the court computed a GSR for each defendant. There, as
here, the range was pushed upward by the presence of money laundering. To
correct this perceived bias, the district court departed downward on the theory
that the defendants' crime, at bottom, constituted bookmaking, and should be
sentenced as such; the money laundering, the court thought, was merely
incidental to the illegal gambling, and, therefore, the offenses of conviction,
although technically including money laundering, fell outside the heartland for
that crime. See LeBlanc, 24 F.3d at 344. We remanded for resentencing, ruling
that the court's characterization of the defendants' conduct ignored the fact that
they were also guilty of money laundering, which Congress had made a distinct
offense. See id. at 347

12

Appellant gives these points only cursory treatment in his appellate brief. We
could, therefore, simply dismiss them on that ground. See Ryan v. Royal Ins.
Co., 916 F.2d 731, 734 (1st Cir.1990) (ruling "that issues adverted to on appeal
in a perfunctory manner, unaccompanied by some developed argumentation,
are deemed to have been abandoned"); United States v. Zannino, 895 F.2d 1, 17
(1st Cir.) (same), cert. denied, 494 U.S. 1082, 110 S.Ct. 1814, 108 L.Ed.2d 944
(1990). But because the contentions were aired in detail below, we elect to
address them briefly

13

As we have previously indicated, this lack of symmetry stems primarily from

appellant's involvement in money laundering--a circumstance that boosted his

GSR well above what it would have been under the guideline covering
interstate transportation of stolen property. None of the other defendants carried
similar baggage into the sentencing arena
14

For purposes of this discussion, we assume that the new precedent constitutes a
clarification, entitled to retroactive effect vis-a-vis cases still pending on direct
appeal. Broader retroactivity concerns are beyond the proper scope of this
opinion