US v. Bruce Harrison, III, No. 12-4819 (4th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-4819 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. BRUCE GREGORY HARRISON, III, Defendant Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. James A. Beaty, Jr., District Judge. (1:10-cr-00411-JAB-1) Submitted: September 26, 2013 Decided: October 3, 2013 Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James B. Craven, III, Durham, North Carolina, for Appellant. Kathryn Keneally, Assistant Attorney General, Frank P. Cihlar, Chief, Criminal Appeals & Tax Enforcement Policy Section, Gregory Victor Davis, Damon W. Taaffe, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Bruce Gregory Harrison, III, was tried and convicted on 63 counts of violating federal tax laws. Following his conviction, the district court sentenced Harrison to 144 months imprisonment and three years of supervised release. The court also ordered Harrison to pay restitution in the amount of $43,207,976 as a condition of supervised release. Harrison now appeals, and we affirm. Harrison owned and operated several temporary agencies from offices in Greensboro, North Carolina. staffing Although Harrison employed a large workforce, he failed to file required Internal Revenue Service (IRS) forms and failed to collect and withhold, inter alia, payroll taxes. Harrison also failed to file personal tax returns for 2004, 2005, and 2006. In late 2006, Harrison sold the staffing companies to two employees. While those employees operated the companies, the payroll taxes were paid Harrison and employment reacquired payroll taxes. the tax returns companies and were filed. again In stopped 2008, paying Harrison used these withheld payments to fund his lifestyle, including the purchase of a luxury beach house and the production of two motion pictures, National Lampoon s Pucked, featuring Jon Bon Jovi, and Home of the Giants. For these actions, as well as efforts made to conceal his criminal activities, a federal grand jury indicted Harrison on 2 one count of corruptly endeavoring to obstruct the administration of the internal revenue laws, in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7212(a), 59 counts of failing to account for and pay payroll taxes, in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7202, and 3 counts of willfully failing to file income tax returns, in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7203. After a three-week trial, the jury convicted Harrison on all counts. Following trial, the probation office prepared a Pre-Sentence Report (PSR). The PSR calculated the total tax loss as $43,951,921; this number included the withheld payroll taxes, personal income taxes Harrison failed to pay for 2004, 2005, and 2006, staffing companies. and additional losses caused by the The PSR calculated Harrison s base offense level as 28 and, with several enhancements, arrived at a total offense level of 36 and a guidelines range of 188 to 235 months imprisonment. The district court adopted the PSR and sentenced Harrison a to imprisonment. below-guidelines The court also sentence ordered of 144 Harrison months to pay restitution of $43,207,976. 1 On appeal, constructively Harrison amended the argues indictment that by the Government presenting evidence that he failed to pay federal unemployment tax returns, and that 1 The restitution order differed from the tax loss because the tax loss included loss to the State of North Carolina, while the restitution order included loss only to the IRS. 3 restitution was not authorized in this case or, in any event, We reject both contentions. 2 was capped at $15.9 million. First, there was no constructive amendment in this case. A constructive amendment, also known as a fatal variance, happens when the government, through its presentation of evidence or its argument, or the district court, through its instructions to the conviction beyond States Roe, v. jury, those 606 or both, charged F.3d quotation marks omitted). 180, in 189 broadens the the bases indictment. (4th Cir. 2010) for United (internal Harrison contends such an amendment occurred in this case because the Government presented evidence that he also failed to pay an unemployment tax that was not charged in the admitted without indictment. This objection simply evidence, to show however, that was Harrison s staffing agencies were still in operation in the years he failed to submit payroll taxes. Likewise, the district court s instructions to the jury reinforced that Harrison was charged only for the actual conduct alleged in the indictment and not anything else (J.A. 2205), and 2 specified repeatedly that Harrison also challenges the sufficiency of the evidence on Count 62, which charged him with failing to file a tax return in 2005, and the district court s imposition of a two-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2T1.1(b)(1). We have reviewed these claims and find them to be without merit. 4 Harrison was charged with 59 counts of failing to pay over payroll taxes. (J.A. 2214). Second, contends the that restitution offenses order under is Title appropriate. 26 do not Harrison authorize restitution and that, even assuming otherwise, any restitution is capped at $15.9 million, the amount of unpaid taxes, rather than the $43,207,976 million in tax loss caused by his scheme. Harrison did not raise these challenges below and we thus review them for plain error. See United States v. Engle, 676 F.3d 405, 424 (4th Cir. 2012). To establish plain error, Harrison must show that an error occurred, that the error was plain, and that the error affected his substantial rights. United States v. Thompson, 554 F.3d 450, 454 (4th Cir. 2009). Even if Harrison makes this showing, we retain the discretion to notice the error and should do so only if the error seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity proceedings. or public reputation of judicial United States v. Marcus, 560 U.S. 258, 130 S.Ct. 2159, 2164 (2010) (internal quotation marks omitted). Because Harrison cannot show that the district court committed error, let alone plain error, his claim must fail. To begin with, the court was authorized to award restitution in this case. Harrison argues that none of the restitution statutes, including 18 U.S.C. § 3663 (the Victim and Witness Protection Act), and 18 U.S.C. § 3663A (the Mandatory Victims 5 Restitution Act), authorize restitution for violations of Title 26. While Harrison is correct, he overlooks the fact that the court issued its restitution supervised release. a condition probation of restitution to § 3563(b)(2). Release as a term of Harrison s Under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(d), a court may, as supervised listed order in release, impose § 3563(b). the victim of That the any condition section offense. of authorizes 18 U.S.C. Thus, it is well-settled that the Supervised Statute, together with the Probation Statute, unambiguously authorizes federal courts to order restitution . . . for any criminal offense, including one under Title United States v. Batson, 608 F.3d 630, 635 (9th Cir. 2010). 26. See also United States v. Perry, 714 F.3d 570, 577 (8th Cir. 2013) ( many granted circuits district have noted courts [that] Congress discretionary has authority explicitly to make restitution to a victim of the offense a condition of supervised release, without regard to whether the defendant committed an offense enumerated in § 3663 and § 3663A) (internal quotation marks omitted); United States v. Hassebrock, 663 F.3d 906, 92324 (7th Cir. 2011) (same). Harrison s alternative contention, that the restitution is capped at $15.9 million, the identified tax loss on Counts 2-63, fares no better. Harrison correctly notes that restitution is limited to the offense of conviction and [is] not for other 6 related offenses of which the defendant was not convicted, Batson, 608 F.3d at 636, but overlooks his conviction on Count One, for interference with the administration of the internal revenue laws, in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7212(a). This count covered a broader swath of conduct and amply supports the full restitution award. See United States v. Scheuneman, 712 F.3d 372, 380 (7th Cir. 2013) (holding that restitution order could encompass losses directly attributable to a § 7212 conviction). Accordingly, we affirm Harrison s conviction and sentence. We dispense contentions with are oral argument adequately because presented in the facts and the materials legal before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 7
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.
