United States v. Montanari, No. 15-3140 (8th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this CaseThe Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's convictions for tax evasion, mail fraud, and wire fraud for conduct relating to the operation of three companies that he owned. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion by limiting defendant's cross-examination of a prosecution witness; the district court did not clearly err in determining that defendant's base offense level was 22 based on a tax loss of greater than $1,000,000; and the district court did not clearly err by applying and two-level adjustment under USSG 3C1.1 for obstruction of justice. Because the government concedes that it did not establish sufficient evidence to support the application of the USSG 2T1.1(b)(1) enhancement for failing to report income exceeding $10,000 from criminal activity, the court vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing.
Court Description: Colloton, Author, with Loken and Smith, Circuit Judges] Criminal Case - conviction and sentence. On appeal from conviction for tax evasion, mail fraud an wire fraud, district court did not abuse its discretion in sustaining objections to his cross- examination of prosecution witness on the ground that it was beyond the scope of direct examination and Montanari did not demonstrate any error warranted a new trial. As to sentencing issues, the district court did not clearly err in determining the base offense level based on a tax loss of greater than $1,000,000; and the district court did not clearly err assessing an obstruction of justice enhancement, as the false statements were distinct from the offense of conviction, his conduct significantly obstructed the government's investigation or prosecution and the obstruction were not too remote from any potential criminal investigation. The government concedes it failed to establish by sufficient evidence that he failed to pay taxes of money he obtained through a fraudulent transaction and the case is remanded to recalculate the advisory guidelines range without the two-level specific offense characteristic under Guidelines sec. 2T1.1(b)(1).
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.