{"cached_at":"2026-11-05T11:46:36.005988+00:00","cl_docket_id":"4227236","docket":{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/4227236/","id":4227236,"court":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/courts/flmd/","court_id":"flmd","original_court_info":null,"idb_data":null,"clusters":[],"audio_files":[],"assigned_to":null,"referred_to":null,"bankruptcy_information":null,"absolute_url":"/docket/4227236/united-states-v-holland/","date_created":"2016-08-20T12:03:26.396883-07:00","date_modified":"2024-10-27T12:58:13.444259-07:00","source":1,"appeal_from_str":"","assigned_to_str":"","referred_to_str":"","panel_str":"","date_last_index":"2021-11-11T04:08:11.879441-08:00","date_cert_granted":null,"date_cert_denied":null,"date_argued":null,"date_reargued":null,"date_reargument_denied":null,"date_filed":"2014-04-17","date_terminated":"2019-11-06","date_last_filing":"2021-12-16","case_name_short":"Holland","case_name":"United States v. Holland","case_name_full":"","slug":"united-states-v-holland","docket_number":"3:14-cr-00073","docket_number_core":"1400073","docket_number_raw":"3:14-cr-00073","docket_number_source":0,"federal_dn_office_code":"","federal_dn_case_type":"","federal_dn_judge_initials_assigned":"","federal_dn_judge_initials_referred":"","federal_defendant_number":null,"pacer_case_id":"297333","cause":"","nature_of_suit":"","jury_demand":"","jurisdiction_type":"","appellate_fee_status":"","appellate_case_type_information":"","mdl_status":"","filepath_ia":"https://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.flmd.297333/gov.uscourts.flmd.297333.docket.xml","filepath_ia_json":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.flmd.297333/gov.uscourts.flmd.297333.docket.json","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"ia_needs_upload":true,"ia_date_first_change":"2018-09-30T00:00:00-07:00","date_blocked":null,"blocked":false,"appeal_from":null,"parent_docket":null,"tags":[],"panel":[]},"parties":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/9692523/","id":9692523,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/6384821/","attorney_id":6384821,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/4227236/","docket_id":4227236,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/6384821/","attorney_id":6384821,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/4227236/","docket_id":4227236,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/6384822/","attorney_id":6384822,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/4227236/","docket_id":4227236,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/6384823/","attorney_id":6384823,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/4227236/","docket_id":4227236,"role":1}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/4227236/","docket_id":4227236,"name":"Plaintiff","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2020-06-26T07:39:08.253359-07:00","date_modified":"2020-06-26T07:39:08.253390-07:00","name":"USA","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/9692522/","id":9692522,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/6384820/","attorney_id":6384820,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/4227236/","docket_id":4227236,"role":10}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/4227236/","docket_id":4227236,"name":"Third Party Custodian","date_terminated":"2015-08-04","extra_info":"TERMINATED: 08/04/2015","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2020-06-26T07:39:08.234183-07:00","date_modified":"2020-06-26T07:39:08.234200-07:00","name":"Marilee Harb","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/9692521/","id":9692521,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/6384819/","attorney_id":6384819,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/4227236/","docket_id":4227236,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/6384819/","attorney_id":6384819,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/4227236/","docket_id":4227236,"role":2}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/4227236/","docket_id":4227236,"name":"Interested Party","date_terminated":"2015-08-04","extra_info":"TERMINATED: 08/04/2015","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2020-06-26T07:39:08.208846-07:00","date_modified":"2020-06-26T07:39:08.208863-07:00","name":"Kimberly Shelly","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/9692520/","id":9692520,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/6384818/","attorney_id":6384818,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/4227236/","docket_id":4227236,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/6384818/","attorney_id":6384818,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/4227236/","docket_id":4227236,"role":2}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/4227236/","docket_id":4227236,"name":"Interested Party","date_terminated":"2015-08-04","extra_info":"TERMINATED: 08/04/2015","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2020-06-26T07:39:08.176735-07:00","date_modified":"2020-06-26T07:39:08.176772-07:00","name":"Maryann Salt","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/282443/","id":282443,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/158243/","attorney_id":158243,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/4227236/","docket_id":4227236,"role":10},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/158244/","attorney_id":158244,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/4227236/","docket_id":4227236,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/158244/","attorney_id":158244,"date_action":"2014-05-20","docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/4227236/","docket_id":4227236,"role":6},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/158244/","attorney_id":158244,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/4227236/","docket_id":4227236,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/158245/","attorney_id":158245,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/4227236/","docket_id":4227236,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/158245/","attorney_id":158245,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/4227236/","docket_id":4227236,"role":2}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/4227236/","docket_id":4227236,"name":"Defendant","date_terminated":"2015-08-04","extra_info":"BOND\nTERMINATED: 08/04/2015","highest_offense_level_opening":"Felony","highest_offense_level_terminated":"None","criminal_counts":[{"id":1879538,"name":"18:1349.F ATTEMPT AND CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT MAIL FRAUD(1)","disposition":"Imprisonment: 48 months, this term consists of 48 months as to Counts One through Nine of the Indictment, all such terms to run concurrently; Supervised Release; 36 months, this term consists of 36 months as to Counts One through Nine of the Indictment, all such terms to run concurrently; Special Assessment: $900.00; Restitution: $3,812,077.00 (jointly and severally with Warren Rosenfeld)","status":1,"party_type":422761},{"id":1879539,"name":"18:1343.F FRAUD BY WIRE, RADIO, OR TELEVISION(2-9)","disposition":"Imprisonment: 48 months, this term consists of 48 months as to Counts One through Nine of the Indictment, all such terms to run concurrently; Supervised Release; 36 months, this term consists of 36 months as to Counts One through Nine of the Indictment, all such terms to run concurrently; Special Assessment: $900.00; Restitution: $3,812,077.00 (jointly and severally with Warren Rosenfeld)","status":1,"party_type":422761}],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2017-02-18T05:59:02.366317-08:00","date_modified":"2017-02-18T05:59:02.366341-08:00","name":"Mitchell Holland","extra_info":"BOND"}],"entries":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/288299357/","id":288299357,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/4227236/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/294517233/","id":294517233,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"","date_created":"2023-04-22T12:53:08.237473-07:00","date_modified":"2023-04-22T12:53:08.237477-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Electronic certificate of readiness","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2023-04-22T12:53:08.211124-07:00","date_modified":"2023-04-22T12:53:08.211127-07:00","date_filed":"2016-04-26","time_filed":"11:29:00","entry_number":null,"recap_sequence_number":"2016-04-26.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/275803176/","id":275803176,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/4227236/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/282010248/","id":282010248,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"","date_created":"2023-04-15T05:47:24.534911-07:00","date_modified":"2023-04-15T05:47:24.534915-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Disbursement voucher","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2023-04-15T05:47:24.468887-07:00","date_modified":"2023-04-15T05:47:24.468890-07:00","date_filed":"2015-12-11","time_filed":"09:50:20","entry_number":null,"recap_sequence_number":"2015-12-11.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/272065360/","id":272065360,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/4227236/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/278269066/","id":278269066,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"","date_created":"2023-04-13T02:56:04.070405-07:00","date_modified":"2023-04-13T02:56:04.070409-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Sealed Document","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2023-04-13T02:56:04.012911-07:00","date_modified":"2023-04-13T02:56:04.012915-07:00","date_filed":"2015-11-03","time_filed":"10:10:30","entry_number":null,"recap_sequence_number":"2015-11-03.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/272024102/","id":272024102,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/4227236/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/278227808/","id":278227808,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"","date_created":"2023-04-13T02:12:51.968041-07:00","date_modified":"2023-04-13T02:12:51.968045-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Notice to counsel of filing of official transcript","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2023-04-13T02:12:51.892520-07:00","date_modified":"2023-04-13T02:12:51.892524-07:00","date_filed":"2015-11-02","time_filed":"16:10:51","entry_number":null,"recap_sequence_number":"2015-11-02.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/269738978/","id":269738978,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/4227236/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/275940813/","id":275940813,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"","date_created":"2023-04-11T22:14:03.311647-07:00","date_modified":"2023-04-11T22:14:03.311650-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Sealed Document","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2023-04-11T22:14:03.212065-07:00","date_modified":"2023-04-11T22:14:03.212069-07:00","date_filed":"2015-10-09","time_filed":"11:24:43","entry_number":null,"recap_sequence_number":"2015-10-09.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/267068320/","id":267068320,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/4227236/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/273264389/","id":273264389,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"","date_created":"2023-04-07T12:18:58.051927-07:00","date_modified":"2023-04-07T12:18:58.051931-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"USCA Case Number","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2023-04-07T12:18:57.988097-07:00","date_modified":"2023-04-07T12:18:57.988101-07:00","date_filed":"2015-09-15","time_filed":"15:11:27","entry_number":null,"recap_sequence_number":"2015-09-15.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/262223568/","id":262223568,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/4227236/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/268414263/","id":268414263,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"","date_created":"2023-04-04T02:31:55.179926-07:00","date_modified":"2023-04-04T02:31:55.179930-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Notice of rescheduling hearing (time only)","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2023-04-04T02:31:55.149199-07:00","date_modified":"2023-04-04T02:31:55.149202-07:00","date_filed":"2015-07-30","time_filed":"12:26:13","entry_number":null,"recap_sequence_number":"2015-07-30.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/258696426/","id":258696426,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/4227236/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/264876121/","id":264876121,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"","date_created":"2023-03-28T03:44:03.616218-07:00","date_modified":"2023-03-28T03:44:03.616223-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Notice of rescheduling hearing (time only)","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2023-03-28T03:44:03.530343-07:00","date_modified":"2023-03-28T03:44:03.530351-07:00","date_filed":"2015-06-30","time_filed":"14:54:04","entry_number":null,"recap_sequence_number":"2015-06-30.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/258350226/","id":258350226,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/4227236/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/264529881/","id":264529881,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"","date_created":"2023-03-27T23:30:30.584296-07:00","date_modified":"2023-03-27T23:30:30.584299-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Notice of Hearing","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2023-03-27T23:30:30.525251-07:00","date_modified":"2023-03-27T23:30:30.525254-07:00","date_filed":"2015-06-26","time_filed":"10:39:45","entry_number":null,"recap_sequence_number":"2015-06-26.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/252354545/","id":252354545,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/4227236/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/258524682/","id":258524682,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"","date_created":"2023-03-21T16:51:33.081033-07:00","date_modified":"2023-03-21T16:51:33.081037-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Miscellaneous Relief","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2023-03-21T16:51:33.013950-07:00","date_modified":"2023-03-21T16:51:33.013958-07:00","date_filed":"2015-05-01","time_filed":"15:09:50","entry_number":null,"recap_sequence_number":"2015-05-01.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/251580852/","id":251580852,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/4227236/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/257749571/","id":257749571,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"","date_created":"2023-03-21T06:52:25.623686-07:00","date_modified":"2023-03-21T06:52:25.623691-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Notice to counsel of filing of official transcript","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2023-03-21T06:52:25.617554-07:00","date_modified":"2023-03-21T06:52:25.617560-07:00","date_filed":"2015-04-25","time_filed":"10:57:49","entry_number":null,"recap_sequence_number":"2015-04-25.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/251132473/","id":251132473,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/4227236/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/257300997/","id":257300997,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"","date_created":"2023-03-21T00:28:41.061545-07:00","date_modified":"2023-03-21T00:28:41.061549-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Judgment of Acquittal","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2023-03-21T00:28:41.010025-07:00","date_modified":"2023-03-21T00:28:41.010028-07:00","date_filed":"2015-04-21","time_filed":"16:34:59","entry_number":null,"recap_sequence_number":"2015-04-21.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/182764771/","id":182764771,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/4227236/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/188227626/","id":188227626,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/4227236/571/united-states-v-holland/","date_created":"2021-12-16T07:01:51.034854-08:00","date_modified":"2021-12-16T07:01:51.039107-08:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"571","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"047023802715","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Notice of substitution of AUSA","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2021-12-16T07:01:51.025997-08:00","date_modified":"2021-12-16T07:01:51.027857-08:00","date_filed":"2021-12-16","time_filed":null,"entry_number":571,"recap_sequence_number":"2021-12-16T15:00:20+00:00.001","pacer_sequence_number":2253,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/133096741/","id":133096741,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/4227236/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/137636111/","id":137636111,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/4227236/542/united-states-v-holland/","date_created":"2020-06-26T07:39:07.980956-07:00","date_modified":"2020-06-26T07:39:07.988741-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"542","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2020-06-26T07:39:07.965069-07:00","date_modified":"2020-06-26T07:39:07.970225-07:00","date_filed":"2019-11-06","time_filed":null,"entry_number":542,"recap_sequence_number":"2019-11-06.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"NOTICE OF HEARING: A hearing on 540 Defendant's Motion to Allow Defendant to Appear at Hearing Telephonically is set for November 13, 2019, at 10:00 a.m. in Jacksonville Courtroom 10 B before Judge Marcia Morales Howard. Only counsel for the United States, counsel for Defendant, and a United States Probation Officer from the Middle District of Florida are required to attend this hearing. Defendant and the United States Probation Officer from the Southern District of California are not required to attend. (JW) (Entered: 11/06/2019)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/133096740/","id":133096740,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/4227236/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/137636110/","id":137636110,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/4227236/527/united-states-v-holland/","date_created":"2020-06-26T07:39:07.927616-07:00","date_modified":"2020-06-26T07:39:07.935015-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"527","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2020-06-26T07:39:07.910885-07:00","date_modified":"2020-06-26T07:39:07.915344-07:00","date_filed":"2019-08-28","time_filed":null,"entry_number":527,"recap_sequence_number":"2019-08-28.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"ENDORSED ORDER regarding 525 Defendant Mitchell Holland's Motion to Modify Conditions of Supervised Release. Counsel for the United States shall have up to and including September 11, 2019, to file a response to this motion. Signed by Judge Marcia Morales Howard on 8/28/2019. (JW) (Entered: 08/28/2019)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/133096739/","id":133096739,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/4227236/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/137636109/","id":137636109,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/4227236/478/united-states-v-holland/","date_created":"2020-06-26T07:39:07.872512-07:00","date_modified":"2020-06-26T07:39:07.880101-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"478","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2020-06-26T07:39:07.840536-07:00","date_modified":"2020-06-26T07:39:07.851711-07:00","date_filed":"2018-05-03","time_filed":null,"entry_number":478,"recap_sequence_number":"2018-05-03.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"Case as to Mitchell Holland, Warren Rosenfeld, and Rondell Scott Hedrick reassigned to Judge Marcia Morales Howard. New case number: 3:14-cr-73-J-34JRK. Sr. Judge Marvin J. Garbis no longer assigned to the case. (SJW) (Entered: 05/03/2018)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/133096738/","id":133096738,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/4227236/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/137636108/","id":137636108,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/4227236/476/united-states-v-holland/","date_created":"2020-06-26T07:39:07.824556-07:00","date_modified":"2020-06-26T07:39:07.832744-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"476","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"047018547258","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2020-06-26T07:39:07.802105-07:00","date_modified":"2020-06-26T07:39:07.808336-07:00","date_filed":"2018-03-21","time_filed":null,"entry_number":476,"recap_sequence_number":"2018-03-21.001","pacer_sequence_number":1926,"description":"MANDATE of USCA as to Mitchell Holland re 475 USCA Order. Mandate Issued: 3/21/2018. USCA Number: 15-14081-BB. (EAM) (Entered: 03/21/2018)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/133096737/","id":133096737,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/4227236/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/137636107/","id":137636107,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/4227236/475/united-states-v-holland/","date_created":"2020-06-26T07:39:07.786487-07:00","date_modified":"2020-06-28T03:25:10.556023-07:00","sha1":"6e3bfd07d7832e8979ef06149079046afe56653f","page_count":26,"file_size":115621,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.flmd.297333/gov.uscourts.flmd.297333.475.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.flmd.297333/gov.uscourts.flmd.297333.475.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"         Case: 15-14081   Date Filed: 01/16/2018   Page: 1 of 25\n\n\n                                                       [DO NOT PUBLISH]\n\n\n\n          IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\n\n                  FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT\n                    ________________________\n\n                           No. 15-14081\n                     ________________________\n\n              D.C. Docket No. 3:14-cr-00073-MJG-JRK-1\n\n\n\nUNITED STATES OF AMERICA,\n\n                                            Plaintiff - Appellee,\n\nversus\n\nMITCHELL HOLLAND,\n                                            Defendant - Appellant.\n\n\n\n\n                     ________________________\n\n                           No. 16-10039\n                     ________________________\n\n             D.C. Docket No. 3:14-cr-00073-MJG-JRK-2\n\n\n\nUNITED STATES OF AMERICA,\n\n                                            Plaintiff - Appellee,\n\f                Case: 15-14081      Date Filed: 01/16/2018      Page: 2 of 25\n\n\nversus\n\nWARREN ROSENFELD,\n\n                                                         Defendant - Appellant.\n\n                              ________________________\n\n                     Appeals from the United States District Court\n                          for the Middle District of Florida\n                            ________________________\n\n                                     (January 16, 2018)\n\nBefore MARCUS and NEWSOM, Circuit Judges, and MOORE, District Judge.\n\nPER CURIAM:\n\n         Appellants Mitchell Holland and Warren Rosenfeld were convicted on\n\nmultiple counts of wire fraud and conspiracy to commit wire fraud. In these\n\nconsolidated appeals, they raise a total of eight issues in connection with their\n\nconvictions and sentences. Finding no reversible error, we affirm.\n\n                                               I\n\n                                  A. The offense conduct\n\n         In April 2014, a federal grand jury returned an indictment charging Holland\n\nand Rosenfeld, along with two other defendants, with 17 counts related to a\n\nlongstanding wire-fraud scheme. Specifically, the indictment charged Holland\n\nwith one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. \u00a7\u00a7\n\n\n The Honorable William T. Moore Jr., United States District Judge for the Southern District of\nGeorgia, sitting by designation.\n                                               2\n\f              Case: 15-14081    Date Filed: 01/16/2018    Page: 3 of 25\n\n\n1349 and 1343 and eight counts of wire fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. \u00a7 1343.\n\nThe indictment charged Rosenfeld with one count of conspiracy to commit wire\n\nfraud and three counts of wire fraud.\n\n      More particularly, the indictment alleged as follows. Beginning around June\n\n2009, Holland and Rosenfeld participated in a fraudulent scheme to \u201clease\u201d fake\n\ncertificates of deposit (CDs) and \u201cproof of funds\u201d letters to borrowers unable to\n\nobtain traditional forms of financing. Holland and Rosenfeld convinced their\n\nclients that the leased CDs and proof-of-funds letters could be used to obtain loans\n\nor other financing, either as collateral or otherwise. Once an agreement was\n\nreached, Holland and Rosenfeld obtained fraudulent financial documents from\n\nUnistate, a shell corporation purporting to be a financial institution headquartered\n\nin New Zealand.\n\n      Each client paid an \u201carrangement fee\u201d of between $150,000 and $622,500\n\nfor Holland and Rosenfeld to secure a leased financial instrument, which would be\n\nheld in the client\u2019s name for 60 days. Theoretically, this initial arrangement fee\n\nwas to be kept in escrow for five days after provision of the leased instrument to\n\nallow time for the client to receive a refund should the documents prove\n\nunsatisfactory. In practice, though, Holland and Rosenfeld never waited the full\n\nfive-day period before requesting disbursement. The arrangement fee was divided\n\namong the scheme\u2019s participants. At the end of the 60-day period, the client could\n\n\n                                          3\n\f               Case: 15-14081       Date Filed: 01/16/2018      Page: 4 of 25\n\n\nextend the lease for up to a year by paying another much larger fee, ostensibly with\n\nfunds obtained through use of the leased documents. 1 Not a single client ever paid\n\nthis second fee, likely because none were able to use the fake documents in any\n\nway.\n\n                             B. Pre-trial motions and notices\n\n       Before trial, the parties filed several motions and notices that are relevant to\n\nthis appeal.\n\n       First, the government filed a notice of intent to introduce Fed. R. Evid.\n\n404(b) evidence regarding seven transactions not charged in the indictment,\n\nincluding three that occurred prior to the period of the conspiracy alleged in the\n\nindictment. Holland and Rosenfeld objected, arguing that the uncharged\n\ntransactions were not similar factually, that they would lead to guilt by association,\n\nand that the risk of unfair prejudice outweighed the evidence\u2019s probative value.\n\nThe government responded that the uncharged transactions were inextricably\n\nintertwined with the charged conduct and were thus outside Rule 404(b)\u2019s scope\n\naltogether and, alternatively, that the transactions should be admitted under Rule\n\n1\n According to the indictment, Holland and Rosenfeld executed this scheme against individual\nvictims in the following way: Dwight Jenkins received a fraudulent $10 million \u201cCD and Proof\nof Funds Account\u201d for a $150,000 arrangement fee; George Sayar received a $200 million\n\u201cleased CD\u201d for an initial fee of $622,500; Justin Nemec received a $4 million \u201cleased CD\u201d for\nan initial payment of $375,000; Brian Winum received a $100 million \u201cleased CD\u201d in exchange\nfor an initial payment of $300,000; Ronald Sapp received a $100 million \u201cleased CD\u201d for an\ninitial arrangement fee of $400,000; and Aurora Asset Management, LLC received a $100\nmillion \u201cleased CD\u201d for an initial fee of $450,000. The victims were led to believe they could\nmonetize the leased instruments, but were unable to do so.\n                                               4\n\f               Case: 15-14081        Date Filed: 01/16/2018      Page: 5 of 25\n\n\n404(b) to establish intent, plan, knowledge, and absence of mistake. 2 The court\n\nadmitted the evidence on the ground that the transactions were inextricably\n\nintertwined with the charged conduct.\n\n       Second, Holland and Rosenfeld designated James Bradley as an expert\n\nwitness and provided his expert report and curriculum vitae. The government\n\nmoved in limine to exclude Bradley\u2019s testimony on the grounds that he did not\n\nmeet Fed. R. Evid. 702\u2019s requirements for an expert and that he had\n\nmisrepresented his qualifications and credentials in his CV and report. The\n\ngovernment further claimed that Bradley\u2019s expert report amounted to nothing more\n\nthan an opinion on the defendants\u2019 mens rea, rather than proper expert opinion.\n\nRosenfeld responded by \u201cretract[ing Bradley\u2019s] expert designation\u201d and noting his\n\nintent to call Bradley as a fact witness instead.\n\n       Finally, the government noted its intent to seek forfeiture totaling\n\n$9,151,978 and asserted that if it were unable to obtain property traceable to the\n\ncrime, it would be entitled to substitute property. The government also filed a bill\n\n\n\n2\n The government\u2019s trial brief summarized the additional deals as follows: Symtech International\nwas to receive a $100,000,000 \u201csub account\u201d for an initial deposit of $649,965; Magmetal\nIndustries received a $10,000,000 \u201caccount\u201d for an initial deposit of $475,000; Superstition\nFunding received a $3,000,000 \u201cverification of deposit\u201d for an initial deposit of $82,500; Dwight\nJenkins (second deal) received a $20,000,000 \u201cproof of funds account\u201d for a $600,000\narrangement fee; Bentley Equities, LLC received a $25,000,000 \u201caccount\u201d for a $300,000\narrangement fee; Progressive Funding Solutions, LLC received a $50,000,000 \u201cleased CD\u201d for a\n$450,000 arrangement fee; and Promotora Inmobiliaria received a $100,000,000 \u201cleased stand by\nletter of credit\u201d for a $5,507,500 arrangement fee.\n                                               5\n\f               Case: 15-14081      Date Filed: 01/16/2018     Page: 6 of 25\n\n\nof particulars notifying Rosenfeld that it would seek forfeiture of his house upon\n\nconviction.\n\n                                C. The trial and verdicts\n\n       At trial, the district court ruled that it would not allow Bradley to testify as\n\nan expert witness. The court concluded that the opinions contained in Bradley\u2019s\n\nexpert report amounted to nothing more than his opinion that \u201cthe jury should find\n\nthese folks not guilty,\u201d which the court found inadmissible. The district court did,\n\nhowever, allow the defense to proffer Bradley\u2019s testimony outside the jury\u2019s\n\npresence to determine his acceptability as a lay witness. During the proffer,\n\nBradley stated that he knew both Holland and Rosenfeld but had not participated in\n\nany of the transactions at issue in this case. Rosenfeld\u2019s attorney argued that\n\nBradley\u2019s experience provided him the personal knowledge required for admission\n\nas a lay witness, stating as follows: \u201cThe purpose for Mr. Bradley is \u2026 to explain\n\nhow the DTC operates because he actually knows. \u2026 He\u2019s not rendering an\n\nopinion if he likes the way it operates. He\u2019s not rendering an opinion if people\n\nenjoy the way it operates. He\u2019s going to explain how it actually operates.\u201d3 The\n\ndistrict court halted Bradley\u2019s initial proffer due to the jury\u2019s arrival. When the\n\nproceedings resumed, Rosenfeld\u2019s attorney decided to make the proffer himself\n\nrather than have Bradley continue to testify. During this proffer, Rosenfeld\u2019s\n\n3\n The DTC referenced by Rosenfeld\u2019s attorney is the Depository Trust Company, the\norganization that clears financial transactions occurring in the United States.\n                                             6\n\f              Case: 15-14081     Date Filed: 01/16/2018   Page: 7 of 25\n\n\ncounsel contended that Bradley could provide context by speaking about his\n\npersonal experience in investment banking and in the \u201cnontraditional side of\n\ninvestment, funding, and banking,\u201d where Bradley would testify leased instruments\n\nare indeed used. The district court ruled that Bradley\u2019s proffered testimony was\n\n\u201cnot fact testimony,\u201d but rather \u201copinion testimony,\u201d rendering Bradley\n\ninadmissible as a lay witness. For purposes of the record, Holland\u2019s attorney then\n\nstated Holland would \u201cadopt\u201d Rosenfeld\u2019s positions and \u201csubmit[ted] that we\n\nwould be able to call Bradley as a fact witness or an expert witness.\u201d The district\n\ncourt restated its ruling that Bradley would not be allowed to testify.\n\n      The government proffered William Kerr as an expert witness on the types of\n\ntransactions typically occurring in the financial world. Rosenfeld renewed the\n\nobjection that he had made pre-trial, arguing that Kerr was unqualified to testify as\n\nan expert on \u201cnon-traditional financial transactions\u201d\u2014a euphemism for the\n\ntransactions at issue here\u2014and that Kerr\u2019s testimony would unreliably contradict\n\nthe testimony of other witnesses. Holland\u2019s attorney joined Rosenfeld\u2019s objection.\n\nThe district court admitted Kerr\u2019s testimony over Holland\u2019s and Rosenfeld\u2019s\n\nobjections.\n\n      Rosenfeld testified in his own defense. During his testimony, he made\n\nstatements that became the basis of an obstruction-of-justice-based sentence\n\nenhancement, discussed below. Among other things, during direct examination, he\n\n\n                                          7\n\f              Case: 15-14081    Date Filed: 01/16/2018    Page: 8 of 25\n\n\nclaimed he had been \u201ccontacted by a Secret Service agent that was looking for\n\nexpert witnesses.\u201d On cross-examination, the government inquired as to the nature\n\nof Rosenfeld\u2019s role as an expert witness. When asked where he testified as an\n\nexpert, Rosenfeld could not clearly recall, but said he believed it was in the Eastern\n\nDistrict of New York in Queens. When pressed further on the matter, Rosenfeld\n\nconceded that he did not testify in court, was not even in New York when the trial\n\nin question happened, and claimed that he only used the term \u201cexpert\u201d on direct\n\nbecause he was answering questions about his industry in an interview with a\n\nfederal prosecutor.\n\n      At the close of the government\u2019s case in chief, Holland and Rosenfeld each\n\nmoved for judgment of acquittal, but their motions were denied. The motions were\n\nrenewed before the case was submitted to the jury, and again denied.\n\n      After a 12-day trial, a jury convicted Holland and Rosenfeld on all counts.\n\nThe district court then held a forfeiture hearing, at which the government traced a\n\n$273,666.73 payment Rosenfeld made to pay off the lien on his house to the\n\nfraudulent transactions for which he had just been convicted, and argued that the\n\nhouse should therefore be subject to forfeiture. The jury returned a special verdict\n\nfinding Rosenfeld\u2019s house was property traceable to all four offenses of conviction.\n\n\n\n\n                                          8\n\f              Case: 15-14081     Date Filed: 01/16/2018   Page: 9 of 25\n\n\n                                  D. The sentences\n\n      Following conviction, both the government and the presentence\n\ninvestigation report calculated the loss attributable to Rosenfeld at $10,523,978,\n\nand the government sought restitution in that amount. The government also sought\n\na forfeiture money judgment of $9,151,978. Rosenfeld objected to the inclusion of\n\ntransactions not included in the indictment and argued that the \u201cprovable loss\u201d\n\nattributable to him was only $2,297,500. The court held a sentencing hearing at\n\nwhich extensive arguments were made regarding the inclusion of each transaction\n\nin the loss calculation. Following the hearing, the district court issued written\n\nfindings regarding loss amount and restitution, applying the full loss amounts for\n\nvictims named in the indictment and adding loss amounts for two other victims not\n\nnamed in the indictment, settling on a total restitution amount of $3,812,077. The\n\ncourt also found Holland and Rosenfeld jointly and severally liable for a forfeiture\n\nmoney judgment in the same amount and entered a preliminary order of forfeiture\n\nfor Rosenfeld\u2019s house based on the jury\u2019s special verdict. Rosenfeld filed a motion\n\nto stay forfeiture of his house pending final sentencing and expected appeal, which\n\nthe court later granted.\n\n      Among other enhancements, Rosenfeld\u2019s presentence investigation report\n\nadded a two-level increase for obstruction of justice based on Rosenfeld\u2019s\n\nmisleading trial testimony that he had served as an expert for the government.\n\n\n                                          9\n\f             Case: 15-14081     Date Filed: 01/16/2018    Page: 10 of 25\n\n\nRosenfeld asserted that his testimony was made in good faith, arguing that he\n\nnever used the word \u201ctestify\u201d on direct examination and had only answered the\n\ngovernment\u2019s questions on cross. The government argued that Rosenfeld\n\ndeliberately attempted to deceive the jury into believing he had testified as an\n\nexpert witness for the government, and the district court agreed. Rosenfeld\u2019s\n\nresulting guidelines range was 87-108 months. He was ultimately sentenced to 60\n\nmonths imprisonment followed by three years of supervised release in addition to\n\nthe $3,812,077 restitution amount, the forfeiture money judgment in the same\n\namount, and the forfeiture of his house. Holland, jointly and severally liable with\n\nRosenfeld for the restitution amount and the forfeiture money judgment, was\n\nsentenced to 48 months imprisonment followed by three years supervised release.\n\nThis appeal followed.\n\n                                          II\n\n      As previously explained, Holland and Rosenfeld present eight issues arising\n\nfrom proceedings in the district court. First, Holland argues that there was\n\ninsufficient evidence to show that he acted with the requisite intent to sustain the\n\njury\u2019s verdict. Second, Holland and Rosenfeld contend the district court abused its\n\ndiscretion by admitting evidence of uncharged fraudulent transactions. Third,\n\nHolland and Rosenfeld assert that the district court abused its discretion by\n\nallowing the government\u2019s expert to testify. Fourth, Holland and Rosenfeld argue\n\n\n                                          10\n\f             Case: 15-14081     Date Filed: 01/16/2018    Page: 11 of 25\n\n\nthat the court abused its discretion by refusing to allow their \u201ckey\u201d witness to\n\ntestify as either an expert or lay witness. Fifth, Rosenfeld contends that the district\n\ncourt improperly calculated the forfeiture amount applicable to him. Sixth,\n\nRosenfeld asserts that the district court erred by not limiting the government\u2019s\n\ninterest in his home to the mortgage payment shown to be tainted by the proceeds\n\nof the fraud. Seventh, Rosenfeld argues that the imposition of both a money\n\njudgment and the forfeiture of his home violates the Excessive Fines Clause.\n\nFinally, Rosenfeld contends that the court erroneously imposed a two-level\n\nenhancement to his sentence for obstruction of justice in connection with his\n\nmisleading testimony.\n\n      We address each issue in turn.\n\n            A. The government produced sufficient evidence for a jury\n                to conclude Holland acted with the requisite intent\n      We \u201creview de novo a district court\u2019s denial of judgment of acquittal on\n\nsufficiency of evidence grounds \u2026 consider[ing] the evidence in the light most\n\nfavorable to the government, drawing all reasonable inferences and credibility\n\nchoices in the government\u2019s favor.\u201d United States v. Rodriguez, 732 F.3d 1299,\n\n1303 (11th Cir. 2013) (internal citation omitted). We will not overturn a jury\u2019s\n\nverdict if any reasonable construction of the evidence would have allowed the jury\n\nto find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. The government may\n\nrely on circumstantial evidence to prove intent, but a conviction based on\n\n                                          11\n\f             Case: 15-14081     Date Filed: 01/16/2018   Page: 12 of 25\n\n\ncircumstantial evidence \u201cmust be supported by reasonable inferences, not mere\n\nspeculation.\u201d Id.\n\n      \u201c[I]n order to support a conviction for wire fraud, the evidence at trial must\n\nshow that a defendant (1) intentionally participated in a scheme or artifice to\n\ndefraud another of money or property, and (2) used or caused the use of wires for\n\nthe purpose of executing the scheme or artifice.\u201d Id. \u201cSimilarly, in order to sustain\n\na conviction for conspiracy to commit wire fraud, the government must prove that\n\nthe defendant knew of and willfully joined in the unlawful scheme to defraud.\u201d Id.\n\n(internal quotation omitted). Thus, in order to support Holland\u2019s convictions, the\n\ngovernment must prove Holland acted with the intent to defraud. See United\n\nStates v. Bradley, 644 F.3d 1213, 1239 (11th Cir. 2011). In our Circuit, however,\n\n\u201c[a] jury may infer an intent to defraud from the defendant\u2019s conduct,\u201d United\n\nStates v. Maxwell, 579 F.3d 1282, 1301 (11th Cir. 2009), and the fact that Holland\n\npersonally profited from the fraud \u201cmay provide circumstantial evidence of [his]\n\nintent to participate in that fraud,\u201d United States v. Naranjo, 634 F.3d 1198, 1207\n\n(11th Cir. 2011).\n\n      The government produced more than sufficient evidence that Holland acted\n\nwith intent to defraud. The \u201cfinancial documents\u201d that Holland provided his\n\nclients contained several obvious signs that they were fake. Each of the CDs\n\nleased between 2008 and 2010 purported to issue from \u201cChase Manhattan Bank\n\n\n                                          12\n\f             Case: 15-14081     Date Filed: 01/16/2018   Page: 13 of 25\n\n\nBritish West Indies\u201d\u2014a bank that has not existed at all since 2000 and, even when\n\nit did exist, never had a branch in the British West Indies. Identifying information\n\non the screenshots of the leased instruments sent to clients as proof of the funds\u2019\n\nexistence did not follow proper clearinghouse format. In addition to providing the\n\nobviously fake instruments to his clientele, Holland consistently told his clients\n\nthat the leased instruments could be used as collateral for loans, even though he\n\nknew that none of his customers had been able to use a leased instrument in any\n\nway. When one client complained about his inability to confirm a \u201cblocked funds\u201d\n\nletter from Citibank El Salvador, Holland told him the account had been closed\n\nbecause someone had tried to withdraw money from the account\u2014a statement that\n\ncould not possibly have been true since the account was a fake. Finally, Holland\n\npersonally profited from the fraud, which the jury was free to consider as\n\ncircumstantial evidence that he intended to participate. In short, there was more\n\nthan enough evidence that Holland intended to participate in the fraud as charged.\n\nThe district court correctly denied his motion for judgment of acquittal.\n\n           B. The district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting\n                      evidence of uncharged similar conduct\n      This Court reviews a district court\u2019s decision to admit evidence of uncharged\n\noffenses for abuse of discretion. United States v. Ford, 784 F.3d 1386, 1392 (11th\n\nCir. 2015). \u201cDeterminations regarding the admissibility of evidence rest largely\n\nwith the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be disturbed on appeal\n\n                                          13\n\f             Case: 15-14081     Date Filed: 01/16/2018   Page: 14 of 25\n\n\nabsent a clear showing of abuse of discretion.\u201d United States v. Muscatell, 42 F.3d\n\n627, 630 (11th Cir. 1995).\n\n      This Court \u201crepeatedly has held that evidence of uncharged conduct that is\n\npart of the same scheme or series of transactions and uses the same modus\n\noperandi as the charged offenses is admissible as intrinsic evidence outside the\n\nscope of Rule 404(b).\u201d Ford, 784 F.3d at 1394. \u201c[E]vidence of such criminal\n\nconduct falls outside the scope of Rule 404(b), and thus is independently\n\nadmissible, if it is (1) an uncharged offense which arose out of the same transaction\n\nor series of transactions as the charged offense[s], (2) necessary to complete the\n\nstory of the crime, or (3) inextricably intertwined with the evidence regarding the\n\ncharged offense[s].\u201d Id. at 1393 (internal quotation omitted).\n\n      Separately, under Rule 404(b), evidence of uncharged conduct is admissible\n\nto prove \u201cmotive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity,\n\nabsence of mistake, or lack of accident.\u201d Fed. R. Evid. 404(b)(2). In this Circuit,\n\nfor evidence to be admissible under Rule 404(b), \u201c(1) it must be relevant to an\n\nissue other than defendant\u2019s character; (2) there must be sufficient proof to enable\n\na jury to find by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant committed the\n\nact(s) in question; and (3) the probative value of the evidence cannot be\n\nsubstantially outweighed by undue prejudice, and the evidence must satisfy Rule\n\n403.\u201d Ford, 784 F.3d at 1393.\n\n\n                                         14\n\f             Case: 15-14081     Date Filed: 01/16/2018    Page: 15 of 25\n\n\n      The district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that the\n\nuncharged-transactions evidence was \u201cinextricably intertwined\u201d with the charged\n\noffenses and represented portions of an overall fraudulent scheme. The charged\n\noffenses were not isolated acts, but rather parts of a series of transactions involving\n\nHolland and Rosenfeld acting in the same roles (although with a new supplier of\n\nfraudulent documents) and employing the same modus operandi. See Muscatell,\n\n42 F.3d at 630-31 (evidence of related acts admissible even though occurring prior\n\nor subsequent to charged offenses).\n\n      Alternatively, the evidence was admissible under Rule 404(b) as proof of\n\nHolland\u2019s and Rosenfeld\u2019s intent with regard to the charged transactions. First,\n\nintent is material in a wire fraud case when a defendant pleads not guilty. See\n\nUnited States v. Barrington, 648 F.3d 1178, 1186 (11th Cir. 2011). Second, the\n\ngovernment produced evidence that Holland and Rosenfeld participated in each\n\ntransaction and that each document was fraudulent. It was therefore reasonable for\n\nthe jury to conclude Holland and Rosenfeld committed the acts admitted. As to the\n\nthird prong, \u201c[a] similarity between the other act and a charged offense will make\n\nthe other offense highly probative with regard to a defendant\u2019s intent in the\n\ncharged offense.\u201d United States v. Ramirez, 426 F.3d 1344, 1354 (11th Cir. 2005).\n\nThe similarities between Holland\u2019s and Rosenfeld\u2019s earlier acts and the charged\n\noffenses are obvious\u2014particularly in that each involved passing on useless fake\n\n\n                                          15\n\f              Case: 15-14081     Date Filed: 01/16/2018   Page: 16 of 25\n\n\nfinancial documents in return for a large \u201cinitial deposit.\u201d The district court was\n\ntherefore within its discretion to admit the evidence under either theory, and we\n\nwill not disturb its decision.\n\n           C. The district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting\n                          William Kerr\u2019s expert testimony\n      We review a district court\u2019s decision to admit or exclude an expert for abuse\n\nof discretion. United States v. Azmat, 805 F.3d 1018, 1041 (11th Cir. 2015). \u201cWe\n\nhave explained that district courts must analyze three factors in determining the\n\nadmissibility of expert testimony under Rule 702: the expert\u2019s qualifications, the\n\nreliability of the testimony, and the extent to which the testimony will be helpful to\n\nthe trier of fact.\u201d Id. (citing United States v. Frazier, 387 F.3d 1244, 1260 (11th\n\nCir. 2004). \u201cWhile scientific training or education may provide possible means to\n\nqualify, experience in a field may offer another path to expert status.\u201d Frazier, 387\n\nF.3d at 1260-61.\n\n      The district court did not abuse its discretion by admitting Kerr as an expert\n\nwitness. Kerr worked for 39 years in the Office of the Comptroller of Currency,\n\nincluding 12 years in the Office\u2019s offshore banking and fraud section. Since 2007,\n\nhe has worked as a banking and financial-fraud consultant, and has been qualified\n\nas an expert witness in federal court approximately 70 times on related issues. His\n\nexperience more than qualified him to speak on the matters at hand. Frazier, 387\n\nF.3d at 1261. Furthermore, the fact that Kerr\u2019s testimony contradicted that of other\n\n                                          16\n\f              Case: 15-14081     Date Filed: 01/16/2018    Page: 17 of 25\n\n\nwitnesses in no way disqualifies him as an expert. These contradictions affect only\n\nthe credibility of Kerr\u2019s testimony, not its admissibility. See United States v.\n\nPearson, 791 F.2d 867, 871 (11th Cir. 1986). The jury was free to weigh Kerr\u2019s\n\ncredibility as it saw fit. The district court therefore did not abuse its discretion in\n\nadmitting Kerr\u2019s expert testimony.\n\n            D. The district court did not abuse its discretion by excluding\n                            the testimony of James Bradley\n      As just explained, we review a district court\u2019s decision to admit or exclude\n\nan expert\u2019s testimony only for abuse of discretion. Azmat, 805 F.3d at 1041.\n\n\u201c[T]he deference that is the hallmark of abuse-of-discretion review, requires that\n\nwe not reverse an evidentiary decision of a district court unless the ruling is\n\nmanifestly erroneous.\u201d Frazier, 387 F.3d at 1258 (internal citation and quotation\n\nomitted). \u201cProffered expert testimony generally will not help the trier of fact\n\nwhen it offers nothing more than what lawyers for the parties can argue in closing\n\narguments.\u201d Id. at 1262-63. Here, the court ruled that Bradley\u2019s testimony would\n\nnot be helpful to the jury because the opinions contained within his report merely\n\nstated Bradley\u2019s beliefs regarding Holland\u2019s and Rosenfeld\u2019s guilt. An\n\nindependent reading of Bradley\u2019s report does not indicate the district court erred,\n\nlet alone manifestly so. We therefore find no basis to reverse the district court\u2019s\n\ndecision.\n\n\n\n                                           17\n\f             Case: 15-14081     Date Filed: 01/16/2018   Page: 18 of 25\n\n\n      Nor did the court abuse its discretion by refusing to admit Bradley as a lay\n\nwitness. Rosenfeld attempts to circumvent Bradley\u2019s lack of personal knowledge\n\nrelated to the specific facts of this case by claiming that Bradley would have\n\ntestified only to facts of which he has personal knowledge gained from his\n\nexperience in the field of alternative finance. We think, however, that the\n\ntestimony proffered by both Bradley\u2019s and Rosenfeld\u2019s counsel is rightly viewed as\n\nexpert testimony beyond the scope allowed a lay witness. As Rosenfeld himself\n\nnotes, the distinction between a lay and expert witness is that \u201clay testimony results\n\nfrom a process of reasoning familiar in everyday life, while expert testimony\n\nresults from a process of reasoning which can be mastered only by specialists in\n\nthe field.\u201d Fed. R. Evid. 701 Advisory Committee\u2019s Note-2000 Amendment. It is\n\ntrue, of course, that a lay witness who has personally used a particular financial\n\ninstrument could be permitted to testify that such an instrument exists. But\n\nHolland and Rosenfeld sought to elicit testimony from Bradley going far beyond\n\nsuch a basic assertion. Rather than simply recounting his own use of \u201cleased\u201d\n\nCDs, Bradley\u2019s proffered testimony focused on how banks and other lending\n\ninstitutions may view such instruments. Rosenfeld wanted Bradley to testify as to\n\nhow the DTC operates, and how the financial instruments at issue here could be\n\nused within the DTC network. Such testimony clearly has its genesis in \u201ca process\n\nof reasoning which can be mastered only by specialists in a field\u201d and is therefore\n\n\n                                          18\n\f             Case: 15-14081     Date Filed: 01/16/2018    Page: 19 of 25\n\n\nbest reserved for a properly qualified expert witness. At a minimum, the district\n\ncourt did not abuse its discretion in so concluding.\n\n                 E. The district court did not err in calculating the\n                   forfeiture money judgment against Rosenfeld\n      Rosenfeld argues that \u201cthe district court erred by ordering the forfeiture of\n\nfunds related to uncharged conduct and by failing to make findings as to what\n\nproceeds were received by Rosenfeld or [his] co-conspirators.\u201d Br. of Rosenfeld at\n\n42. We review the district court\u2019s legal conclusions regarding forfeiture de novo\n\nand its findings of fact for clear error. United States v. Hoffman-Vaile, 568 F.3d\n\n1335, 1340 (11th Cir. 2009).\n\n      The district court did not err by ordering Rosenfeld to forfeit funds linked to\n\nuncharged conduct. When a defendant is convicted of a criminal offense for which\n\ncivil forfeiture is authorized, the court shall \u201corder the forfeiture of \u2026 property as\n\npart of the sentence in the criminal case.\u201d 28 U.S.C. \u00a7 2461(c). The civil\n\nforfeiture statute authorizes forfeiture of \u201c[a]ny property, real or personal, which\n\nconstitutes or is derived from proceeds traceable to a violation of \u2026 any offense\n\nconstituting \u2018specified unlawful activity\u2019 (as defined in section 1956(c)(7) of this\n\ntitle), or a conspiracy to commit such offense.\u201d 18 U.S.C \u00a7 981(a)(1)(C). Section\n\n1956\u2019s definition of \u201cspecified unlawful activity\u201d includes wire fraud. 18 U.S.C. \u00a7\n\n1956(c)(7)(A) (including within the definition of \u201cspecified unlawful activity\u201d any\n\nact constituting an offense listed in \u00a7 1961(1), which includes wire fraud).\n\n                                          19\n\f             Case: 15-14081     Date Filed: 01/16/2018   Page: 20 of 25\n\n\n      The elements of forfeiture must be proven by a preponderance of the\n\nevidence. United States v. Hasson, 333 F.3d 1264, 1277 (11th Cir. 2003); see also\n\nUnited States v. Barakat, 130 F.3d 1448, 1452 (11th Cir. 1997) (district court was\n\nfree to consider acquitted conduct at sentencing as long as government proved\n\nacquitted conduct by preponderance of the evidence). Rosenfeld\u2019s argument that\n\nnone of the uncharged conduct was proven beyond a reasonable doubt, therefore, is\n\nbeside the point. In addition, we have previously held that a jury may consider\n\nboth acquitted and uncharged conduct when determining a forfeiture amount.\n\nHasson, 333 F.3d at 1279. In Hasson, the defendant was convicted of wire fraud\n\nand conspiracy to launder the proceeds of mail and wire fraud, but was acquitted\n\non mail fraud charges. Id. at 1279-80. The court nonetheless allowed the jury to\n\nconsider evidence of the acquitted mail-fraud conduct, as well as uncharged\n\nconduct, when determining which properties would be forfeitable under the\n\ncriminal forfeiture statute. Id. at 1277-79 (\u201cThe jury was free to \u2026 consider\n\nevidence of \u2026 wire frauds adduced by the government in support of the money\n\nlaundering count, though not charged as separate substantive counts.\u201d). Though\n\nHasson involved the criminal forfeiture statute rather than the civil, we see no\n\nreason the same logic would be in applicable here.\n\n      Although he does so now, Rosenfeld did not previously object to the district\n\ncourt\u2019s forfeiture calculations based on a supposed failure to make findings about\n\n\n                                         20\n\f              Case: 15-14081     Date Filed: 01/16/2018     Page: 21 of 25\n\n\npossession of proceeds. We therefore review only for plain error. United States v.\n\nSosa, 777 F.3d 1279, 1294 (11th Cir. 2015). \u201cTo demonstrate plain error, the\n\ndefendant must show that there is (1) error, (2) that is plain, (3) that affects\n\nsubstantial rights, and (4) that seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public\n\nreputation of judicial proceedings.\u201d Id. (internal quotations omitted).\n\n      Where there is no precedent from the Supreme Court or this Court directly\n\nresolving an issue, there can be no plain error where the text of a statute or rule\n\ndoes not explicitly resolve it. United States v. Lejarde-Rada, 319 F.3d 1288, 1291\n\n(11th Cir. 2003). The statutes at issue in this case, 18 U.S.C. \u00a7\u00a7 981(a)(1)(C) and\n\n2461(c), do not explicitly require the district court issue findings regarding\n\npossession of proceeds, nor does a published case from this Court or the United\n\nStates Supreme Court. Accordingly, we find no plain error.\n\n             F. The district court did not plainly err by failing to limit\n                 the government\u2019s interest in Rosenfeld\u2019s house\n      Rosenfeld failed to object to the forfeiture of his entire interest in his house.\n\nTherefore, again, we review only for plain error. Sosa, 777 F.3d at 1294.\n\n      Rosenfeld argues that only the amount he wired to pay off his mortgage in\n\nDecember 2009 should have been subject to forfeiture because it was the only\n\npayment on the house the government showed was made with tainted funds. The\n\ngovernment does not fundamentally dispute Rosenfeld\u2019s contention, but it\n\nnonetheless argues that he is not entitled to relief on plain-error review, and further\n\n                                            21\n\f              Case: 15-14081     Date Filed: 01/16/2018   Page: 22 of 25\n\n\ncontends that any error is harmless because it may simply substitute the remainder\n\nof the interest in the home to satisfy the money judgment entered against\n\nRosenfeld.\n\n      We find no case law directly addressing this particular issue before us, and\n\nwe do not believe that the statute clearly and unambiguously resolves the question.\n\nBecause there is no binding precedent directly on point, we save for another day\n\nthe question whether the government\u2019s interest should have been limited to the\n\namount traceable to the proceeds of the fraud. We hold only that the district court\n\ndid not plainly err in this instance.\n\n              G. The district court\u2019s forfeiture order does not violate\n                            the Excessive Fines Clause\n\n      Rosenfeld contends that allowing dual forfeitures, in this instance the\n\nforfeiture money judgment and the forfeiture of his home, violates the Eighth\n\nAmendment\u2019s Excessive Fines Clause and constitutes impermissible double-\n\ncounting.\n\n      Rosenfeld did not object to the forfeiture of his house in addition to the\n\nmoney judgment. Accordingly, we review only for plain error. Sosa, 777 F.3d at\n\n1294. A forfeiture order imposed at end of a criminal proceeding due to a\n\nconviction constitutes a fine subject to the Excessive Fines Clause. United States\n\nv. Seher, 562 F.3d 1344, 1371 (11th Cir. 2009). But a forfeiture order constitutes\n\n\n\n                                          22\n\f                Case: 15-14081   Date Filed: 01/16/2018    Page: 23 of 25\n\n\nan excessive fine only \u201cif it is grossly disproportional to the gravity of defendant\u2019s\n\noffense.\u201d Id.\n\n      Double-counting alone does not render a fine excessive. See United States\n\nv. Sperrazza, 804 F.3d 1113, 1128 (11th Cir. 2015). In addition, we have\n\npreviously held it permissible for a district court to order forfeiture of specific\n\nproperty even when there was a separate money judgment. See United States v.\n\nChaplin\u2019s Inc., 646 F.3d 846, 854-55 (11th Cir. 2011). Although Rosenfeld\u2019s total\n\nfine exceeds the statutory maximum for his offense by 431%, such an increase\n\ndoes not on its own render a fine \u201cgrossly disproportionate\u201d in violation of the\n\nExcessive Fines Clause. Cf. Chaplin\u2019s Inc., 646 F.3d at 854-55 (fine exceeding\n\nstatutory maximum by 33.3% and guideline maximum by 53.8% not excessive);\n\nsee also United States v. Castello, 611 F.3d 116 (2nd Cir. 2010) (4,805.17%\n\nincrease not excessive). Because no binding precedent made it clear that an\n\nincrease of 431% over the statutory maximum renders a fine excessive, we are\n\nconstrained to hold that the district court did not plainly err.\n\n                   H. The district court did not err by imposing\n             a sentence enhancement for obstruction of justice when\n              calculating Rosenfeld\u2019s Sentencing Guidelines range\n      When reviewing a district court\u2019s imposition of an enhancement for\n\nobstruction of justice this Court reviews factual findings for clear error and\n\napplication of the findings to the sentencing guidelines de novo. United States v.\n\n\n                                           23\n\f             Case: 15-14081     Date Filed: 01/16/2018   Page: 24 of 25\n\n\nPerkins, 787 F.3d 1329, 1341 (11th Cir. 2015). We do not disturb factual findings\n\nunder the clear-error standard unless we are left with a definite and firm conviction\n\nthat a mistake has been made. United States v. Rothenberg, 610 F.3d 621, 624\n\n(11th Cir. 2010).\n\n      A two-level sentence enhancement for obstruction of justice is appropriate\n\nwhen \u201cthe defendant willfully obstructed or impeded, or attempted to obstruct or\n\nimpede, the administration of justice with respect to the investigation, prosecution,\n\nor sentencing of the instant offense of conviction.\u201d U.S.S.G. \u00a7 3C1.1. Perjury is\n\nan example of obstructive conduct. U.S.S.G. \u00a7 3C1.1 cmt. n.4(B).\n\n      This Court requires a district court applying an obstruction-of-justice\n\nenhancement to explain what the defendant did, why that conduct warranted the\n\nenhancement, and how that conduct actually hindered the investigation or\n\nprosecution of the offense. United States v. Alpert, 28 F.3d 1104, 1107-08 (11th\n\nCir. 1994) (en banc). Here, the district court issued written findings on the\n\nenhancement noting that both it and the jury were misled by Rosenfeld\u2019s\n\ntestimony. We give special deference to the district court for these types of\n\ndecisions. See United States v. Williams, 340 F.3d 1231, 1240 (11th Cir. 2003)\n\n(\u201cAn appellate court is not in a position to assess a defendant\u2019s demeanor, apparent\n\nsincerity, intonation, expression, gesticulations, and a wide range of other\n\n\n\n\n                                          24\n\f             Case: 15-14081    Date Filed: 01/16/2018    Page: 25 of 25\n\n\nconsiderations that are pertinent in determining whether he has perjured himself.\u201d).\n\nWe find no basis on which to reverse the district court here.\n\n                                         III\n\n      Having found no reversible error, we AFFIRM the district court in all\n\nrespects.\n\n\n\n\n                                         25\n\f                    Case: 15-14081           Date Filed: 01/16/2018                 Page: 1 of 1\n\n\n                                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\n                                     FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT\n\n                                     ELBERT PARR TUTTLE COURT OF APPEALS BUILDING\n                                                   56 Forsyth Street, N.W.\n                                                   Atlanta, Georgia 30303\n\n\nDavid J. Smith                                                                                        For rules and forms visit\nClerk of Court                                                                                        www.ca11.uscourts.gov\n\n\n                                                 January 16, 2018\n\nMEMORANDUM TO COUNSEL OR PARTIES\n\nAppeal Number: 15-14081-BB ; 16-10039 -BB\nCase Style: USA v. Mitchell Holland\nDistrict Court Docket No: 3:14-cr-00073-MJG-JRK-1\n\nThis Court requires all counsel to file documents electronically using the Electronic Case Files (\"ECF\")\nsystem, unless exempted for good cause. Enclosed is a copy of the court's decision filed today in this appeal.\nJudgment has this day been entered pursuant to FRAP 36. The court's mandate will issue at a later date in\naccordance with FRAP 41(b).\n\nThe time for filing a petition for rehearing is governed by 11th Cir. R. 40-3, and the time for filing a petition\nfor rehearing en banc is governed by 11th Cir. R. 35-2. Except as otherwise provided by FRAP 25(a) for\ninmate filings, a petition for rehearing or for rehearing en banc is timely only if received in the clerk's office\nwithin the time specified in the rules. Costs are governed by FRAP 39 and 11th Cir.R. 39-1. The timing,\nformat, and content of a motion for attorney's fees and an objection thereto is governed by 11th Cir. R. 39-2\nand 39-3.\n\nPlease note that a petition for rehearing en banc must include in the Certificate of Interested Persons a\ncomplete list of all persons and entities listed on all certificates previously filed by any party in the appeal. See\n11th Cir. R. 26.1-1. In addition, a copy of the opinion sought to be reheard must be included in any petition for\nrehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See 11th Cir. R. 35-5(k) and 40-1 .\n\nCounsel appointed under the Criminal Justice Act (CJA) must submit a voucher claiming compensation for\ntime spent on the appeal no later than 60 days after either issuance of mandate or filing with the U.S. Supreme\nCourt of a petition for writ of certiorari (whichever is later) via the eVoucher system. Please contact the CJA\nTeam at (404) 335-6167 or cja_evoucher@ca11.uscourts.gov for questions regarding CJA vouchers or the\neVoucher system.\n\nFor questions concerning the issuance of the decision of this court, please call the number referenced in the\nsignature block below. For all other questions, please call Carol R. Lewis, BB at (404) 335-6179.\n\nSincerely,\n\nDAVID J. SMITH, Clerk of Court\n\nReply to: Jeff R. Patch\nPhone #: 404-335-6161\n\n                                                                                    OPIN-1 Ntc of Issuance of Opinion\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2020-06-26T07:40:39.204541-07:00","document_number":"475","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"047018299213","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2020-06-26T07:39:07.768834-07:00","date_modified":"2020-06-26T07:39:07.773588-07:00","date_filed":"2018-01-16","time_filed":null,"entry_number":475,"recap_sequence_number":"2018-01-16.001","pacer_sequence_number":1923,"description":"USCA Opinion affirming the district court as to Mitchell Holland re 270 Notice of Appeal. USCA number: 15-14081-BB. Mandate to issue at a later date. USCA number: 15-14081-BB. (EAM) (Entered: 01/16/2018)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/133096736/","id":133096736,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/4227236/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/137636106/","id":137636106,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"","date_created":"2020-06-26T07:39:07.753191-07:00","date_modified":"2020-06-26T07:39:07.760754-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2020-06-26T07:39:07.738981-07:00","date_modified":"2020-06-26T07:39:07.739011-07:00","date_filed":"2016-04-26","time_filed":null,"entry_number":null,"recap_sequence_number":"2016-04-26.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"Pursuant to F.R.A.P. 11(c), the Clerk of the District Court for the Middle District of Florida certifies that the record is complete for purposes of this appeal re: 270 Notice of Appeal as to Mitchell Holland. All documents are imaged and available for the USCA to retrieve electronically. USCA number: 15-14081-BB. (SJW)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/133096735/","id":133096735,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/4227236/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/137636105/","id":137636105,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/4227236/425/united-states-v-holland/","date_created":"2020-06-26T07:39:07.718857-07:00","date_modified":"2020-06-26T07:39:07.730024-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"425","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2020-06-26T07:39:07.702233-07:00","date_modified":"2020-06-26T07:39:07.706821-07:00","date_filed":"2015-12-11","time_filed":null,"entry_number":425,"recap_sequence_number":"2015-12-11.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"DISBURSEMENT VOUCHER Check number 00737533 for cash bond in the amount of $7,501.77 paid to Julissa Holland as to Mitchell Holland per Court's Order #419 dated 11/27/15.(AIL) (Entered: 12/11/2015)","tags":[]}],"entries_total":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/?count=on&docket=4227236&page_size=40"}