Circuit Judges
Circuit Judges
Wilkes-Barre, PA 18701
William Ruzzo, Esq.
590 Rutter Avenue
Kingston, PA 18704
Counsels for Appellant Mark Ciavarella, Jr.
Peter J. Smith, Esq., United States Attorney
Gordon A.D. Zubrod, Esq., Assistant United States Attorney
[ARGUED]
Michael A. Consiglio, Esq., Assistant United States Attorney
Office of United States Attorney
Ronald Reagan Federal Building
228 Walnut Street
P.O. Box 11754
Harrisburg, PA 17108
William S. Houser, Esq., Assistant United States Attorney
Amy C. Phillips, Esq., Assistant United States Attorney
Office of United States Attorney
235 North Washington Avenue
P.O. Box 309, Suite 311
Scranton, PA 18503
Counsels for Appellee United States of America
____________
OPINION OF THE COURT
____________
FUENTES, Circuit Judge:
10
11
ANALYSIS
12
13
14
15
16
17
are correct or not. United States v. Wecht, 484 F.3d 194, 220
(3d Cir. 2007). As such, they do not demonstrate bias, even
if they are expressions of impatience, dissatisfaction, [or]
annoyance. Knoll v. City of Allentown, 707 F.3d 406, 411
(3d Cir. 2013) (quoting Liteky, 510 U.S. at 555) (alteration in
original).
Finally, we note that under 455(a), [d]iscretion is
confided in the district judge in the first instance to determine
whether to disqualify himself because the judge presiding
over a case is in the best position to appreciate the
implications of those matters alleged in a recusal motion,
particularly when the district court judge has presided over
(i) an extraordinarily complex litigation (ii) involving a
multitude of parties (iii) for an extended period of time. In re
Kensington Intl Ltd., 353 F.3d 211, 224 (3d Cir. 2003)
(internal quotation marks, citation and alterations omitted).
Here, at the time of Ciavarellas initial March 1, 2010 recusal
motion and subsequent renewals of that motion, Judge Kosik
had presided over Ciavarellas highly complex case for well
over a year, and over many of Ciavarellas co-conspirators
cases, and he was well-suited to understand the implications
of the Citizens Voice article. We find no abuse of discretion in
the District Courts denial of the recusal motions.
2.
18
19
20
21
22
App. 1512.
May 6, 2010 . . .
I thank you for the letter expressing interest in
and opinions concerning the judicial process as
it may play out in the case of former Judge
Conahan.
I appreciate your views and hope that ultimately
you can respect the final consideration in the
case before me.
App. 1520.
June 15, 2010 . . .
Thank you for your letter dated April 30, 2010,
and received by me on June 14, 2010. I am
sorry justice is so slow, but ultimately I hope
you find it to be true.
App. 1514. Ciavarella renewed his prior recusal
motion based on these letters.
When a sitting judge comments on a pending case, he
or she should heed the clear tenets expressed in our Code of
Conduct for United States Judges. Judges should adhere to
the following standards:
[3A(1)] A judge should be faithful to, and
maintain professional competence in, the law
23
24
25
26
search the deepest veins of [his] soul and find reason not to
let these two judges off lightly, pleading that [s]even and a
third years and some forfeiture of wealth is not severe enough
punishment to begin the healing of the public trust. App.
1506. Wojack said that Ciavarella and Conahan had
committed the most serious crime against the people by
using their courtrooms as a business for profit at the expense
of children. App. 1506. The defense contends that Judge
Kosiks response evidenced his partiality. This view,
however, requires consideration of only certain sentiments
expressedMy personal opinions are in complete sympathy
with those you express and I am not sure we have seen the
end of many transgressions in your countywhile
disregarding othersThe only difference is that my personal
beliefs cannot guide my responsibility and judgments and I
need to determine if the governments reasoning is correct,
and I must do so as detached as possible. Wojack response.
As the Supreme Court noted in Liteky, [i]mpartiality is not
gullibility. Disinterestedness does not mean child-like
innocence. If the judge did not form judgments of the actors
in those court-house dramas called trials, he could never
render decisions. Liteky, 510 U.S. at 551 (internal quotation
marks and citations omitted). Viewing Judge Kosiks
statements in the Wojack correspondence as a whole, no
reasonable observer who is informed of all of the surrounding
facts and circumstances would believe that Judge Kosik could
not, and did not, act impartially. Recusal was not required.
4.
27
28
29
30
31
32
C.
11
We review the District Courts limitations on crossexamination based on relevancy for abuse of discretion.
United States v. Silveus, 542 F.3d 993, 1005 (3d Cir. 2008).
We review for plain error objections that were not specifically
raised before the District Court. United States v. Christie, 624
F.3d 558, 567 (3d Cir. 2010) (applying plain error review for
claim that admission of testimony violated the Confrontation
Clause).
33
United States v. Chandler, 326 F.3d 210, 219 (3d Cir. 2003).
Ciavarella sought throughout the trial to portray
Powell as a large and powerful figure, who was incapable of
being extorted by Ciavarella and instead was embezzling
from his companies to support his lavish lifestyle. The
defense inquired into Powells credit card statements,
confronting him about a December 2003 statement containing
over $21,000 in charges, a January 2004 statement containing
over $13,000 in charges, and a February 2004 statement
containing over $15,000 in charges. After the questioning of
Powell about his third credit card statement, the District Court
asked the defense about the relevance of the line of
questioning and subsequently sustained an objection by the
Government.
Ciavarella also attacked Powells credibility through
the testimony of Owens regarding Powells demeanor and his
structuring of transactions. Owens testified that Powells
demeanor changed in 2006 and 2007 and that Powell had
become paranoid, quick tempered, and demanding. Around
that time, according to Owens, Powell had directed Owens to
withdraw large amounts of cash from Powells companies.
The defense on cross-examination sought to demonstrate that
it was Powells embezzlement from his companies that had
led to his changed demeanor and not Ciavarellas alleged
extortion demands. However, after Ciavarella had asked
Owens about Powells business partner Greg Zappalas lack
of knowledge of Powells withdrawals from the companies
they jointly owned, the District Court inquired as to the
relevance of Powells embezzlement, prompting an objection
from the Government that the District Court sustained. The
Government then conceded that [t]he issue of paranoia,
34
35
and
36
37
15
38
39
40
E.
41
42
43
44
45
3.
RICO
Conspiracy
and
Money
Laundering Conspiracy Convictions
(Counts 2 and 21)
Statute of Limitations
18
46
47
1.
48
(6th Cir. 2004). But this is not the law in our Circuit. Rather,
we have held, consistent with nearly all of our sister Circuits,
that the statute of limitations is an affirmative defense that
will be waived if not properly preserved prior to or during
trial. See Karlin, 785 F.2d at 92-93; see also United States v.
Arky, 938 F.2d 579, 582 (5th Cir. 1991) ([I]t is difficult to
conceive why [the statute of limitations defense] alone, of all
the defendants affirmative defenses, should not be waived if
not asserted at trial.).
2.
Application
Limitations
of
Statute
of
49
50
Effect of Vacatur
51
52
of
53
Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000); Grier, 475 F.3d at 562
(Once an individual has been convicted by a jury beyond a
reasonable doubt of the predicate facts of illegal conduct,
triggering a statutory maximum penalty, a court may impose
any sentence on the individual up to that maximum.). Here,
the total sentence imposed was 336 months imprisonment,
less than the maximum statutory penalties, which total 137
years imprisonment, excluding Count 7. See 18 U.S.C.
371, 1341, 1956(a), 1962(c),(d), 1963; 26 U.S.C. 7206(1).
Ciavarellas argument that the District Court relied on
improper evidence in sentencing him is also without merit.
He asserts that the District Court should not have considered
Powells testimony, any payments by Powell, or the 2005 and
2006 payments by Mericle, which the jury had rejected.
Additionally, because the jury rejected the bribery charges
and the notion of a conflict of interest, according to
Ciavarella, the District Court improperly increased his
sentence based on his failure to disclose that conflict of
interest to juvenile offenders. But a jurys verdict of
acquittal does not prevent the sentencing court from
considering conduct underlying the acquitted charge, so long
as that conduct has been proved by a preponderance of the
evidence. United States v. Watts, 519 U.S. 148, 157 (1997).
[T]he jury cannot be said to have necessarily rejected any
facts when it returns a general verdict of not guilty. Id. at
155 (internal quotation marks omitted). Here, the District
Court considered Powells testimony and evidence of
additional payments from Powell and Mericle, and it found
the relevant conduct was proved by a preponderance of the
evidence. We find no clear error in the District Courts factual
findings because there is sufficient evidence in the record to
54
55
CONCLUSION
56