Legal Case Summary

You may be seated. Miss Saki? Yes. May it please the court. Good morning, Your Honours. My name is Judith Saki, and I come before this court on behalf of the appellant Erica Brown with respect to her appeal. Miss Brown respectfully asks this court to reverse the decision of the district court below on the basis of sufficiency or insufficiency of the evidence as per her rule 29 motion. While the consolidated brief filed by the appellants in this case does speak to a number of issues, my argument will be limited solely to the government's failure to prove the second element of the substance of counts, male, fraud and wire fraud. As articulated on the record below, Miss Brown was initially a customer later turned employee of this rent to own a vehicle program, operated and advertised by Mr. Williams under his various business models. She worked under the general framework of an already existing business and the services that it offered. Miss Brown does not deny that she posted advertisements on the Craigslist and through the Penny Savor ads, and she certainly doesn't deny marketing and promoting the business to family friends based on her own satisfaction as a customer of the program. However, to say that she did so knowingly participating in this scheme to defraud your honors with specific intent to do so, plainly goes against the way of the evidence in this case. You don't deny there was a scheme to defraud the... You're on I do not. I do not deny that. However... I had the chief she joined in that. That is correct. And, for the record below, I certainly believe that it goes against the way of the evidence and light of the fact that she was actually acquitted of the conspiracy count charged in the indictment. This fact certainly goes a long way. It goes to show that the evidence produced that trial was deficient, deficient with respect to showing that she intended to defraud persons of their monies or that she knowingly participated in any scheme or even aided and abetted in that particular scheme. If the jury was, in fact, able to find that Miss Brown did not in fact conspire with Mr. Williams, which is said to be one of the easier crimes to prove, then the question then becomes what exactly is it that she did? She posted ads, yes, certainly, but we submit to the court that the government fall short here with respect to the requisite intent required with respect to those substantive counts. But for the fact that the court below aired an allowing Miss Brown's intimate relationship with Mr. Williams to come in, the jury would not have been able to connote that she then maintained some level of insight or insider information as to how the business was said to operate. And simply because of this short lived intimacy, the jury, I believe, was influenced by it. The fact of the matter, Your Honor, is that our position is that there was no evidence to show that Miss Brown at any time acted with any fraudulent intent to defraud or deprive persons of their monies. In fact, as a participating customer initially of the program, again, as our related to the court, she suggested to friends and families and acted in good faith, making representations concerning the marketing of the program and how it was expected to run

. She, along with many other of the witnesses who testified, who were also members and customers of the program, understood that there was a component of the program whereby as a member you would market and advertise the opportunity to rehabilitate one's credit, rebuild your credit, ultimately obtain a secured credit card, so and so forth. And- So essentially the argument that was made to the jury in the jury rejected? To some extent, Your Honor. But the jury was, in fact, I believe, clouded again by the evidence that was able to come in with respect to her relationship with Mr. Williams. But the fact that she, again, was acquitted of the conspiracy, we think flies in the face of the charges she's now convicted on. But you're not suggesting that the fact that she was acquitted of the conspiracy charge speaks to the substantive count? No, Your Honor, I'm not suggesting that. However, as it relates to this case, it is our position that the evidence is insufficient to show that she acted with the specific intent to defraud persons or that she knowingly participated in this scheme to defraud. Any representations that she made were certainly made in good faith and not with the intention to deceive. And so, Your Honor, we'd ask that the court reverse and remain the decision below with findings. Thank you, Your Honor. Yes. Thank you. I'll probably give this wrong, Mr. Kiwi Annozzi. You want to do it? You want to do it? You want to do it? All right. You're pretty close. Good morning, Judge Gray. Good morning, Judge Duncan. Good morning, Judge Wilson. I have the heaviest of burden to lift, but I'll take it one at a time. Spat enough with Judge Wilson's question. Yes, on behalf of Mr. Williams, we're denied that there was an intent to defraud in this case. And the reason I say that, Judge, in an analysis using the Lanham Act, which was cited in our brief. First of all, the court has to look at the statement in question. As we cited on page 19 of the brief, we cited using the Lanham Act, but then our pine case from the 10th second, 2009, we cited the time-wanna case 2007 from the second second, and the picture-hot case and the Papi Jones case from the 5th second in 2000. The relevance of those cases, Judge, in addition to the eviscuses, 1986, is you have to look at the statement in context. In other words, in analyzing the words that was advertised, it's just like the horrible case said, you're in good hands with all states. Those are the men that are the hand holding you. State Farm, like a neighbor, you see here, those are men that state Farm is next door to you. The words that were used specifically on Craigslist, appears on page 20 of the brief

. It says, bad credit, no credit, no based on no problem. Then it goes to list a car or cars that are available to you. But then most importantly, it says, our credit rental program will allow you to build or rebuild your credit. You're not being told that you're getting a car to rent to own. The rental aspect of it, Judge, is when you rent this car, the website is clear. It's in a supplemental joint dependence in this case. For you to even participate in the program, you have to go online. In the supplemental joint dependence, you'll see the exemptions, the disclaimers, the notices. In other words, this is not something where you're running to somebody in the parking lot. And then you say, come and sign this, and then I'll take your money and that's it. No. What Mr. William did here was set up a system whereby everything had to go online. That's an excellent jury argument. Yes, Judge Beden is also an appellate argument because I will submit to the court that the first analysis missed by the court. In a motion for judgment of a quiddle and the motion of judgment of a quiddle at every state of the procedure, including the written motion as well, is that the analysis of the land I indicates that the statement is questioned is mere profit. And mere profit, Judge, doesn't rise up to the level of a statement that is the materiality that is required for something to be fraudulent. Specifically, it tells you that you have to rent. Rental is the first aspect. But then in addition to rental, it tells you in the ad itself, while driving what you like, in six to 12 months, you will be able to buy something you want with down payment. Anything you want with no down payment. Yes. But then, Judge, if you look at that statement, it's an invitation. Just like all states would say, you're in good hands with all states, come to us. This is telling you to rent your own. So for you to even participate in this program, Judge Duncan, you have to go online. You have to fill out the application. But of course, enterprise didn't rent your own. And enterprise only allowed leases of up to 30 days. That's where the problem lies, Judge Duncan. And then reading the brief of the government, and no mistil was not trial counsel in this case, and I was

. And I'm familiar with the facts and circumstances of this case. If you go on to giant appendix, one of five. Specifically, there were testimony given by Marlon Paine. It appears on my cross examination, and even the government from page 532, and then Mr. Conningham, who's the prosecutor, a US editor, tried a case from page 518, on the cross examination of Mr. Paine, enterprise as Mr. Paine indicates, Judge, his statements on the oath. He specifically says, we are in competition. Mr. Williams showed up with a competitors vehicle. We then decided to get into a program with him, enterprising competition, then give him what they call a special rate for businesses. What does that do? That allows you to rent a car. As Mr. Paine, the gentleman that negotiated the deal with Mr. Williams, the preferred rate, Judge Duncan, that they have, and the agreement that they had, allowed them to rent a vehicle up to 12 months. That is what is mixed in the whole argument. Its enterprise may allow you to rent for 30 days, but what Mr. Williams had with enterprise, allowed you to rent for up to 12 months. Your employees, your independent contractors, there's even further argument made by the government in its brief. And then it was even made a court that enterprise, that after you rent with them, that Mr. Williams was pushing 2K tech. However, specifically, on the joint appendix, on the testimony of Mr. Carter, who is one of the employees at rent enterprise rental, everybody that rented an enterprise on that Mr. Carter had what needed a pay stop and then needed the name of the employer. Every documentation and reference to rental by Mr. Carter of enterprise indicates that the individual was employed someplace else, not with 2K tech. Additionally, and most importantly, Mr. Carter's statements on the cross-examination of Pearson 571 of the joint appendix, the only individual from enterprise rental that had 2K tech, I will summarize out of either laziness or for some reason, 2K tech listed as the employer, is Mr. Kenitia McEun, that appears on page 641, up to 622, and up to 650 of the joint appendix. Specifically, we respect to Mr. Kenitia McEun, on the forms that she filled out, she put in employee 2K tech

. But the problem with that is, she also then has pay stop from the individual shown that this individual was employed someplace else. So there was no intent to deceive enterprise. Enterprise knew what they got into, enterprise was collected the money. But I thought that enterprise was told that you were renting company cars for your employees, or that Mr. Williams was waiting for a fleet of cars for his employees. No, Mr. Payne said that that conversation never even took place, that's why I directly on the court to read Mr. Mao and Payne's cross-examination of Pearson 532. And I will invite you to read the direct examination as well. He is the person that negotiated, he said he had conversations with him. All they wanted judge was to rent cars to people to use. Cars were rented, monies were being paid. They were not deceived. And why I submit that they were not deceived, because in addition to this information from Mr. Payne, the other gentleman that appeared on behalf of enterprise even told the jury on the oath that the logos that were being used by Mr. Williams was without the authorization of enterprise. However, part of the documents and records is this stipulation by the parties that it was authorized to use that logo, including enterprise logo, carsdirect.com. The ad speaks for itself, the website speaks for itself. The government in his brief, and as we argued before the court, everybody seems to have this notion that this is something that was happening in the parking lot and then his hiding information from people. Every person that appeared as a renter, for example, Chisa Riley, she walks to IBM. She said she needed a rental car, Billy Hanks had a job, Roderick Thompson had a job, Donica Boris had a job. All the witnesses called by the government, each had jobs. They rented cars before. Remember specifically that Donica Boris was the first one that had a testify? My specific question is, you've bought a car before, right? Yes. When you buy a car, you go through finance people so that you determine your monthly payments and everything else that goes with it, and she admitted. So I do not see where the government or the court could find anything other than an advertisement. Why would the cars repossess? The cars repossess because what happened was some individuals started calling enterprise rental. And then they wanted enterprise-related payments from Mr. Williams. Mr

. Williams was running into problems, the problem being that part of this program requires you. Not only do you have to get this rental car at a reduced rate, because remember, he's getting it at a reduced rate, preferred rate negotiated with enterprise. But then Mr. Williams has to come up with money to make payments. These individuals getting low rental rates, insurance included, including maintenance, are supposed to advertise on cell telephones, advertise on cell other products on behalf of a company known as shop A2ZMOR.com. But then these individuals did not follow true on part of what they were supposed to do, some did not even make payments. So Mr. Williams ran into problems, and then when he ran into the problems, payments were not being made, enterprise needed the money. They started repossessing the cars after calling the individual. And how? That's how it all broke down and came apart. Thank you. Thank you. The sale? Good morning. I'm Barbara Sale from the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Maryland. And as Mr. Awana Gay noted, I was not trial counsel below, but I would be happy to try to answer any questions the court might have about the sufficiency or anything else in this case. This is one of the most cynical and pernicious fraud schemes I've ever seen 30 years of prosecuting fraud schemes. Because it targeted people who, as Mr. Awana Gay said, had jobs, but they had no way to get there. The very first witness, Ms. Dominique Love, I believe her name was, was a flabot of mist. She had a lab job, but she lived in Charles County, or St. Mary's County, Maryland, rural Southern Maryland, which is just a wilderness of strip malls. You can't get anywhere without a car. And she had no car, no credit. How long do you suppose she was going to be able to keep that job? So the people he targeted by his ads, and I included this brown in this, were people who were desperate for one of the necessities of life. And this is the very same fraud that he had perpetrated before with the apartment scheme and the 30 car rental scheme. I'm sorry, just before I forget, did Ms

. Brown and I will ask on the rebuttal, object to the evidence of the relationship coming in. I just don't remember seeing that. I believe she did, Your Honor, and I don't have the page site, but I will certainly be happy to look at that. And I will ask. Thank you. Just to speak to Ms. Brown. No, but no, go on with the argument. I did not mean to disrupt your train. I was just checking something off. Well, I did want to focus on Ms. Brown. She counsel made the very same argument to the jury that counsel made to the court. And essentially both my learned friends did that. The jury rejected those arguments. This case was fully aired and well instructed and well tried. And there is really nothing in this record that suggests that Your Honor's ought to reverse the jury's determination in this case. This scheme is just peculiar. By placing an ad in the Penny saver on Craigslist, and I would note that the ads were not placed in the Wall Street Journal or Town and Country. These were, Penny saver is a circular that is sent by US mail to different zip codes and neighborhoods. And they were able to choose which zip code or neighborhood the Penny saver went to. And it's just a classified ad service. And the advertisement as it's stated, said auto rent to own. It is not ambiguous. Anybody reading that is going to believe this is the answer to my problems. I can't get to work. I'm going to lose my job. I can rent to own car, said credit program, bad credit, no credit, no problem. Wide selection of cars, trucks, SUV, low monthly payments, low down payment, insurance and maintenance included. Now, your eye might look at that and think, this is ridiculous. It's too good to be true

. But the people who get bamboozled in fraud schemes tend to be either the desperate or the greedy. And these people were not greedy. They were desperate. These were people who absolutely needed this necessity to get by. They responded to the ad. And the fact that in Mr. Williams' mind, they had to enter into his multi-level marketing scheme as part of the getting the car doesn't fully add up. Some of these people were taken to enterprise the very day they called. They called. They spoke to Miss Brown and within 24 hours they were in enterprise parking lot, waiting for signing paperwork and waiting for their cars to come. The first lady who testified, I believe it was Dominique Love, only had the car for two days. Two days and the car was repossessed. I mean, she, and she was out $1,000 for a two-day car rental. That's just mean. That's the only way I can put it. It is just a mean scheme. And it is frankly something that Mr. as Judge Bredard found. What part was the misrepresentation? Material misrepresentation in fact. The material misrepresentations were that the people were ever going to be able to own the cars. You go to buy a car, to rent a car from enterprise car rental. There is no possible means by which you're going to end up owning that car. It wasn't a lease program where at the end of the lease with the dealership you have the option to buy. There was simply no potential. The other thing is this program was economically impossible. It could not succeed. And the same was true of the apartment program. The witnesses from enterprise testified that ordinarily the price to rent any car from enterprise would be from $800 up to maybe $1400 a month. This was $300 a month, $300 a month, with the upfront payment to Mr. Williams. So what had to happen is the person right there, Chuck, and one lady wrote, and she's a Riley wrote, a check for $5,000 to mispron in person

. Right, a check for $5,000 up front. You get taken to the enterprise car lot. You get a car and you start making monthly payments to $300 a piece. It seems like a good idea, right, for the person who's getting a rental car for $300, it sounds like a great plan. But the fact is that Mr. Williams was not applying any of that upfront fee to the difference between $300 and $800. They were not paying for actual rental cars. They were paying, and the representations were, you pay us. You pay us. You don't pay enterprise. We'll take care of this. We've got this program. We've got this government rate. Or this corporate rate. We'll take care of everything. And these people believed it. And why wouldn't they? They were being told. Ms. Brown was the face of the operation. She's the one that people dealt with. She answered the phone. She placed the ad. She took people physically to the car rental places. And she told them, you're dealing with us. You're deal is with not with enterprise. Which is another way of saying, don't bother to read that fine print. Don't bother to read that part where it says you only have the car for two to four days. You're getting a monthly rate of $300. Was it the fine print there? I'm sorry. You said don't bother to find print. Yes, there was fine print there

. Yes. And the witness of some of them were cross examined about that. They were asked, well, didn't you see that you were just signing for a car for a couple of days? And the response was, she told me your deal is with us, not with enterprise. It's unfortunate, but as I say, these people were desperate. They lived in areas where they couldn't get to work without a car and they didn't have cars. They needed that. Turning briefly to the 404B evidence in the case. This was not by any stretch of the imagination. Mr. Williams first brush with fraud. He had been convicted in 2005 of a virtually identical scheme in which he offered apartment rentals to people who had bag credit or no credit. And again, the deal was with him. He sublet apartments to people. Didn't pay the rent. And of course, they got evicted just as these cars got repossessed. It was exactly the same scheme dealing with a different necessity of life. And he got convicted. He got sentenced to 10 years, five suspended, served about three and a half years. He came out of jail. And what did he do? He started doing that very scheme again. And then it morphed into what I call the thrifty car rental scheme, which was the same scheme with thrifty car rental before he got in enterprise. And as Judge Bridalg found in sentencing Mr. Williams, he is absolutely undeterred. He is incorrigible and unrepentant. And he is one of these people who simply believes that money is better off in his pocket than in your pocket. Now, I willingly concede that Ms. Brown at the outset was a customer, a willing participant. She believed in the program. And part of Mr. Williams' stick, if you read the whole record, is that he's got this multi-level marketing scheme and all of these different comm businesses. And the idea is to get people working for his telephone plan or whatever it was

. I frankly, the supplemental joint appendix has some of the website stuff in there. And I frankly invite the court to read it if you want to. I didn't understand it. It is simply marketing gobbledygook in my view. However, I was conceding that that's part of the plan. Ms. Brown bought into that. She thought, yes, we've got a program here. We can do this. But there came a point at which she had to know that she was walking these people into a very, very bad situation. She was taking them to enterprise. She was saying, congratulations to them when they got their car. And then two, four, six days, where a number of weeks later, their car was being used. She knew that. And she was convicted on, I think, six counts, six substantive counts, all of which were at a point in time when she'd been doing this for a little while. And I'm willing to concede that in September of 2010, she probably didn't realize there was anything wrong with this. By October of 2010, she probably didn't realize there was anything wrong with this. By November or December or January, when she had taken any number of victims to enterprise rental and she'd seen them lose their car, by some point, she knew. And the jury appropriately found that. I think that we can assume that the jury rejected the notion that she was a conspirator in part because they believed she wasn't in it from the beginning. And I'm fine with that. She probably wasn't in it from the beginning. But at some point, she became a willing conspirator in simply fleecing person after person after person. And that is the point at which she began to accrue convictions. Now, does the court have any other questions? There were a lot of issues here and I not addressed all of them. What about the sentencing aspect of the enhancement for managing five or more people? What people would manage? Judge Bredar did an excellent job with. What else was to decide that? Well, you're right. I'm from your argument. Judge Bredar, let me say this. He carefully and meticulously went through the guidelines and found various enhancements. Who were the five people? Let's just start with that. I do not believe that he did apply an enhancement for management of five people. That would be a... It did. He gave him three for an aggravating role. Let me aggravate role. Oh, okay. I'm sorry. The aggravating role was based upon managing five or more people. You gave two versus three. He gave him three. Let me just go through it, Judge. Maybe I'm not understanding the court. The base offense level was seven and the loss amount was... It gave it six levels. He added six for the number of victims, which is 47 and for the vulnerability of victims. That added an additional six points. Three for the aggravating role under 3B1.1B and two for obstruction of justice. Okay. I was just going to the aggravating role. What was that based upon? Let me see if I have it here. Managing five people or more. I think I don't recall, frankly, from looking at the sentencing transcript. I'll be happy to find this and supplement my answer in a letter. Well, you owe me the 28.js. That's the record, counsel

. I do not believe that he did apply an enhancement for management of five people. That would be a... It did. He gave him three for an aggravating role. Let me aggravate role. Oh, okay. I'm sorry. The aggravating role was based upon managing five or more people. You gave two versus three. He gave him three. Let me just go through it, Judge. Maybe I'm not understanding the court. The base offense level was seven and the loss amount was... It gave it six levels. He added six for the number of victims, which is 47 and for the vulnerability of victims. That added an additional six points. Three for the aggravating role under 3B1.1B and two for obstruction of justice. Okay. I was just going to the aggravating role. What was that based upon? Let me see if I have it here. Managing five people or more. I think I don't recall, frankly, from looking at the sentencing transcript. I'll be happy to find this and supplement my answer in a letter. Well, you owe me the 28.js. That's the record, counsel. Well, I'm sorry. You're on the show. I don't want to let you... Excuse me. My recollection is that... You're not prepared to argue that then. No, no, no. Let me finish, please. What he said was... What he did was he took the entire scheme from the beginning to the end. There are certainly two people that he managed in his brown and his canvas, McCullough. His brother was also arguably a member of this scheme. He was part of the multi-level marketing scheme. I do not know the answer to it. Whether there were more than those three... The record did indicate that it was. And you're responsible for knowing the record. Yes, you are. And that's why I said, you're not prepared to argue that. You should know the record. Yes, sir. That's why I'm asking you. That's a appeal

. Well, I'm sorry. You're on the show. I don't want to let you... Excuse me. My recollection is that... You're not prepared to argue that then. No, no, no. Let me finish, please. What he said was... What he did was he took the entire scheme from the beginning to the end. There are certainly two people that he managed in his brown and his canvas, McCullough. His brother was also arguably a member of this scheme. He was part of the multi-level marketing scheme. I do not know the answer to it. Whether there were more than those three... The record did indicate that it was. And you're responsible for knowing the record. Yes, you are. And that's why I said, you're not prepared to argue that. You should know the record. Yes, sir. That's why I'm asking you. That's a appeal. That's a positive appeal. So the question is, what was the factual basis for that aggravating level? And it doesn't appear by your count, mine either, that there were more than three. And it says, for five. I believe... Do you see that it was wrong? No, you're on our doubt. I believe that the answer that... And I would like the opportunity to check this, but I believe the answer is, Judge Brdard took into consideration the entire course of conduct. I followed that. And it's like a continuum. But along that continuum, you've covered three people. Go ahead, continue on the continuum. I do not remember the names of those people, but he did not do it by himself. I'm sorry. I just don't know the answer to this. Just technically. Is that the only basis for a finding of an aggravating role? Is the number of people? No, it can also be the sophistication of the... Having a management role in a... Otherwise, sophisticated crime. Was that given as a reason? Your Honor, I again, apologize. I do not have that in front of me, and I do not remember what... Whether the words were said in sentencing

. That's a positive appeal. So the question is, what was the factual basis for that aggravating level? And it doesn't appear by your count, mine either, that there were more than three. And it says, for five. I believe... Do you see that it was wrong? No, you're on our doubt. I believe that the answer that... And I would like the opportunity to check this, but I believe the answer is, Judge Brdard took into consideration the entire course of conduct. I followed that. And it's like a continuum. But along that continuum, you've covered three people. Go ahead, continue on the continuum. I do not remember the names of those people, but he did not do it by himself. I'm sorry. I just don't know the answer to this. Just technically. Is that the only basis for a finding of an aggravating role? Is the number of people? No, it can also be the sophistication of the... Having a management role in a... Otherwise, sophisticated crime. Was that given as a reason? Your Honor, I again, apologize. I do not have that in front of me, and I do not remember what... Whether the words were said in sentencing... About that specific role in enhancement. Did the district judge adopt the pre-cens report? Yes, he did. And he actually went beyond that. And so there's some language in the pre-cens report. There should be your Honor. Leave there is. What about vulnerable victims? He found that... Yes, he did make a finding of vulnerable victims. He enhanced by three levels for the vulnerable victims and the number of the victims. Why were they vulnerable? They were vulnerable because, as I said at the outset, they were economically vulnerable. These are people who were desperate. They needed... That's the case because you're vulnerable just because you're poor. Poor people can't be intelligent. I didn't say for a moment, nor did I mean to... Why would they be vulnerable just because they're poor? They were vulnerable because they needed transportation. These people would lose their jobs. Because you need a car, you're vulnerable. In this case, yes, Your Honor. I invite you to read the testimony of the victims in this case. These people needed..

... About that specific role in enhancement. Did the district judge adopt the pre-cens report? Yes, he did. And he actually went beyond that. And so there's some language in the pre-cens report. There should be your Honor. Leave there is. What about vulnerable victims? He found that... Yes, he did make a finding of vulnerable victims. He enhanced by three levels for the vulnerable victims and the number of the victims. Why were they vulnerable? They were vulnerable because, as I said at the outset, they were economically vulnerable. These are people who were desperate. They needed... That's the case because you're vulnerable just because you're poor. Poor people can't be intelligent. I didn't say for a moment, nor did I mean to... Why would they be vulnerable just because they're poor? They were vulnerable because they needed transportation. These people would lose their jobs. Because you need a car, you're vulnerable. In this case, yes, Your Honor. I invite you to read the testimony of the victims in this case. These people needed... They were dependent on cab rides, packs, and the kindness of friends to get them to work. How long do you suppose they would be able to keep their jobs on the church? Okay, well, once we start doing that counter, you make a great argument of a social argument. But the thing is that if you're going to start slicing off that, then if someone needs a suit of clothes, they're vulnerable victims. Your Honor, I've had countless fraud cases. Lots of the victims are not vulnerable. They're just greedy. They just want something for nothing. They just see something that they think they can have. And these are not those people. These are people who really and truly needed one of the necessities of modern life. And he targeted those people. He didn't target middle-class people who were able to get themselves to work and get cell phones. A lot of people target poor people. That's the case. A lot of the ads... Look at daytime ads. Night time ads. Talk about low credit. Is that targeting poor people? I submit that it probably is. If you're a mortgage repair, one of these mortgage repair scams, you're targeting people who are desperate. Who are going to lose their house if they don't do something. And instead of giving them some good advice or something they can use, you take more money from them. I submit that that is taking advantage of all the people. None of them go to jail. Oh, to prostitution? I'm trying. Good for you. I've gone way over my time and I apologize. No, you haven't gone over your time because I was asking you a question. Any other questions? No

. They were dependent on cab rides, packs, and the kindness of friends to get them to work. How long do you suppose they would be able to keep their jobs on the church? Okay, well, once we start doing that counter, you make a great argument of a social argument. But the thing is that if you're going to start slicing off that, then if someone needs a suit of clothes, they're vulnerable victims. Your Honor, I've had countless fraud cases. Lots of the victims are not vulnerable. They're just greedy. They just want something for nothing. They just see something that they think they can have. And these are not those people. These are people who really and truly needed one of the necessities of modern life. And he targeted those people. He didn't target middle-class people who were able to get themselves to work and get cell phones. A lot of people target poor people. That's the case. A lot of the ads... Look at daytime ads. Night time ads. Talk about low credit. Is that targeting poor people? I submit that it probably is. If you're a mortgage repair, one of these mortgage repair scams, you're targeting people who are desperate. Who are going to lose their house if they don't do something. And instead of giving them some good advice or something they can use, you take more money from them. I submit that that is taking advantage of all the people. None of them go to jail. Oh, to prostitution? I'm trying. Good for you. I've gone way over my time and I apologize. No, you haven't gone over your time because I was asking you a question. Any other questions? No. Thank you. You said you're applying the worst person you ever seen before. That's the way they make it out to seem judge. But let me take you one at a time. In reference to the question from Judge Duncan as to whether there was an objection. Yes, there was. And you can find out on the joint appendix, starting at 345. And the discussion goes into 346 and 340. And then the court made a ruling in 349. And I appreciate that. And is it also an argument that you made in your brief? Absolutely. Judge, I did not make that argument because I focused. I made that objection. And then so did Miss Saki. But that argument was not specifically. I didn't have a brief. Thank you very much. You're welcome, Judge Duncan. And thank you for looking at it up. You're very much welcome, Judge. Respect to the question from Judge Wilson about the role in the offense, whether we can find out in the press intense investigation report. The answer to that is no. Joint appendix 2113 ruling the offense paragraph. I mean, paragraph 47 adjustment for ruling the offense. No. In other words, as I stated in my brief. I so simply stated in my brief that even the press intense writer starts on page 57. That even the press intense writer did not even find a rule adjustment in this case to give him the manager organizer or leader. So I don't know where the judge found that from. As Judge Gregory articulated, you have to have five or more people to support that position. I thought you could be a scheme that was otherwise extensive

. Thank you. You said you're applying the worst person you ever seen before. That's the way they make it out to seem judge. But let me take you one at a time. In reference to the question from Judge Duncan as to whether there was an objection. Yes, there was. And you can find out on the joint appendix, starting at 345. And the discussion goes into 346 and 340. And then the court made a ruling in 349. And I appreciate that. And is it also an argument that you made in your brief? Absolutely. Judge, I did not make that argument because I focused. I made that objection. And then so did Miss Saki. But that argument was not specifically. I didn't have a brief. Thank you very much. You're welcome, Judge Duncan. And thank you for looking at it up. You're very much welcome, Judge. Respect to the question from Judge Wilson about the role in the offense, whether we can find out in the press intense investigation report. The answer to that is no. Joint appendix 2113 ruling the offense paragraph. I mean, paragraph 47 adjustment for ruling the offense. No. In other words, as I stated in my brief. I so simply stated in my brief that even the press intense writer starts on page 57. That even the press intense writer did not even find a rule adjustment in this case to give him the manager organizer or leader. So I don't know where the judge found that from. As Judge Gregory articulated, you have to have five or more people to support that position. I thought you could be a scheme that was otherwise extensive. I respectfully disagree with the court. I believe that what applies here seems to be what this court found in the United States, the South. Whereby the appellant at most was not a modern manager over property and assets of his business and not over people. And that would be found in a brief from page 58. And respect to the vulnerable victim that your honor, Judge Gregory brought up. What vulnerable victim, this court in the Etoiti case that you decided last year. Etoiti specifically says that every fraud involves somebody vulnerable. There has to be a nexus as this court articulated in Etoiti, what's second 2012. That vulnerable was clearly a runner since not in the law streets. How the victims vulnerability made them particularly susceptible to the criminal conduct. Specifically in this case, there's no vulnerability. People looking for a car. Many people are looking for a car. They have bad credit. They want to repay their credit. But there's nothing about it that makes them susceptible. There has to be some nexus. So, citing, I'm relying on the Etoiti case and the new man case that this court also relied on from the 7th-Second. How did Mr. Williams' program help their credit in bond? It was the way it's supposed to help their credit as the lady from, what is it called, the epifax. Her name is Buffy Christie. You will find that in page 516 of the joint appendix. The way it's supposed to work, George, if only he got there before the secret service and everybody ran in. Once you get the car from the company and you're renting, you then go through the process of applying for the secured credit card. Like Wells Fargo just behind the escort house. When you apply for the secured credit card, it helps you and assists you to build your credit. When you build your credit, your credit rate then increases. What's increasing? It gives you the ability to be able to own, in other words, you can go into a dealership. Now you've fixed your credit as a graduate. You can buy anything you want. You can buy it

. I respectfully disagree with the court. I believe that what applies here seems to be what this court found in the United States, the South. Whereby the appellant at most was not a modern manager over property and assets of his business and not over people. And that would be found in a brief from page 58. And respect to the vulnerable victim that your honor, Judge Gregory brought up. What vulnerable victim, this court in the Etoiti case that you decided last year. Etoiti specifically says that every fraud involves somebody vulnerable. There has to be a nexus as this court articulated in Etoiti, what's second 2012. That vulnerable was clearly a runner since not in the law streets. How the victims vulnerability made them particularly susceptible to the criminal conduct. Specifically in this case, there's no vulnerability. People looking for a car. Many people are looking for a car. They have bad credit. They want to repay their credit. But there's nothing about it that makes them susceptible. There has to be some nexus. So, citing, I'm relying on the Etoiti case and the new man case that this court also relied on from the 7th-Second. How did Mr. Williams' program help their credit in bond? It was the way it's supposed to help their credit as the lady from, what is it called, the epifax. Her name is Buffy Christie. You will find that in page 516 of the joint appendix. The way it's supposed to work, George, if only he got there before the secret service and everybody ran in. Once you get the car from the company and you're renting, you then go through the process of applying for the secured credit card. Like Wells Fargo just behind the escort house. When you apply for the secured credit card, it helps you and assists you to build your credit. When you build your credit, your credit rate then increases. What's increasing? It gives you the ability to be able to own, in other words, you can go into a dealership. Now you've fixed your credit as a graduate. You can buy anything you want. You can buy it. It's like every time that they tell us that we can buy. Whenever you look on those ads from Toyota or Lexus, they always tell you that 4.9% APR until you show up on the door. All those ads... Getting used to apparently deceptive. In a way, George, you deceptive, but then you still have to find that material falsehood on the part of the appellant for you to call it puffery. I will call it puffery. As George learned on hands, quite eloquently articulated George, the puffery argument is even much better when you look at it as a totality of the circumstances of this case. All he's telling you is coming through the door. We can get you to do this. I've only practiced for a short 20 years, George, but I have never seen a case. Even when pre-booker and post-booker, where a George decides to go from a criminal history category of 3 to 4, based on the reasons of risk of recidivism, then turn around again in addition to going and doing a variance and upward departure from criminal history 3. Because you gotta remember, criminal history category 3 puts into consideration for purposes of guideline those offenses that you said he committed in PG County. After counting it, then you double counted to get into criminal history 4, from where he was originally. Then you add an addition to it, after you've arrived at 77 to 96 months, you then move him up to 120 more. In other words, you do double upward departure. George, I've never seen that. Even in child molestation cases, even in CEE cases, even in CCE cases, I have never seen such an upward departure. That I believe, George, is something that this court has to reverse because it's inconsistent. Lastly, on the 4, 4, be George, this court I will rely on the Hernandez case. In the Hernandez case, George, the fact that the defendant may have been involved in drug activity in the past does not in and of his self-provided sufficient nexus to the charged conduct. Anything dealing with apartment complex or PSG has nothing to do with a rent on business. As George Mott wrote in the opinion, dealing with 4, 4, be, it has to do with the remoteness of it. The argument to George Bridae is it is so remote, 5 years past. And then in addition to being 5 years past, George, it is unrelated to the charged conduct. I didn't have time to bring to the attention of the court by way of writing a decision that came out August 26th from the 10th second. I was cited for the purposes of record. The United States was dismissed. Where the case was reversed on the 4, 4, be, and in that particular case, George, it's a case where it's a two-year-old drug deal in another case

. It's like every time that they tell us that we can buy. Whenever you look on those ads from Toyota or Lexus, they always tell you that 4.9% APR until you show up on the door. All those ads... Getting used to apparently deceptive. In a way, George, you deceptive, but then you still have to find that material falsehood on the part of the appellant for you to call it puffery. I will call it puffery. As George learned on hands, quite eloquently articulated George, the puffery argument is even much better when you look at it as a totality of the circumstances of this case. All he's telling you is coming through the door. We can get you to do this. I've only practiced for a short 20 years, George, but I have never seen a case. Even when pre-booker and post-booker, where a George decides to go from a criminal history category of 3 to 4, based on the reasons of risk of recidivism, then turn around again in addition to going and doing a variance and upward departure from criminal history 3. Because you gotta remember, criminal history category 3 puts into consideration for purposes of guideline those offenses that you said he committed in PG County. After counting it, then you double counted to get into criminal history 4, from where he was originally. Then you add an addition to it, after you've arrived at 77 to 96 months, you then move him up to 120 more. In other words, you do double upward departure. George, I've never seen that. Even in child molestation cases, even in CEE cases, even in CCE cases, I have never seen such an upward departure. That I believe, George, is something that this court has to reverse because it's inconsistent. Lastly, on the 4, 4, be George, this court I will rely on the Hernandez case. In the Hernandez case, George, the fact that the defendant may have been involved in drug activity in the past does not in and of his self-provided sufficient nexus to the charged conduct. Anything dealing with apartment complex or PSG has nothing to do with a rent on business. As George Mott wrote in the opinion, dealing with 4, 4, be, it has to do with the remoteness of it. The argument to George Bridae is it is so remote, 5 years past. And then in addition to being 5 years past, George, it is unrelated to the charged conduct. I didn't have time to bring to the attention of the court by way of writing a decision that came out August 26th from the 10th second. I was cited for the purposes of record. The United States was dismissed. Where the case was reversed on the 4, 4, be, and in that particular case, George, it's a case where it's a two-year-old drug deal in another case. Based on those reasons and any other reasons that may appear to the court, I submit to your honor that this case requires a reversal. It's maplory. The writer, as J. Lenin says, and specifically states, is held to what they've signed and what they've written. They've read it. They signed on to the program. They're bound by it. Based on those reasons and any other reasons that may appear to the court, I asked that this case be overturned and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this court ruling. And that the sentence in this case be violated because it's among reasonable sentences based on the facts of the case. Thank you for your time and attention. Mr. O'Hangey and Saki, I know that you both are court-appointed again. We especially thank you on behalf of the court for taking this assignment. We've had tough cases and we couldn't do our work without it and we really appreciate it. We thank you. You're very much welcome, Madam. If I may tell you what was the price, I actually did this tool we trial pro bono. Oh, well, thank you even more so. We appreciate it. Miss Sales, thank you for your zealous and able representation of the United States. We're going to ask the clerk to adjourn the court's signing a die and then we're going to come down and greet council.

You may be seated. Miss Saki? Yes. May it please the court. Good morning, Your Honours. My name is Judith Saki, and I come before this court on behalf of the appellant Erica Brown with respect to her appeal. Miss Brown respectfully asks this court to reverse the decision of the district court below on the basis of sufficiency or insufficiency of the evidence as per her rule 29 motion. While the consolidated brief filed by the appellants in this case does speak to a number of issues, my argument will be limited solely to the government's failure to prove the second element of the substance of counts, male, fraud and wire fraud. As articulated on the record below, Miss Brown was initially a customer later turned employee of this rent to own a vehicle program, operated and advertised by Mr. Williams under his various business models. She worked under the general framework of an already existing business and the services that it offered. Miss Brown does not deny that she posted advertisements on the Craigslist and through the Penny Savor ads, and she certainly doesn't deny marketing and promoting the business to family friends based on her own satisfaction as a customer of the program. However, to say that she did so knowingly participating in this scheme to defraud your honors with specific intent to do so, plainly goes against the way of the evidence in this case. You don't deny there was a scheme to defraud the... You're on I do not. I do not deny that. However... I had the chief she joined in that. That is correct. And, for the record below, I certainly believe that it goes against the way of the evidence and light of the fact that she was actually acquitted of the conspiracy count charged in the indictment. This fact certainly goes a long way. It goes to show that the evidence produced that trial was deficient, deficient with respect to showing that she intended to defraud persons of their monies or that she knowingly participated in any scheme or even aided and abetted in that particular scheme. If the jury was, in fact, able to find that Miss Brown did not in fact conspire with Mr. Williams, which is said to be one of the easier crimes to prove, then the question then becomes what exactly is it that she did? She posted ads, yes, certainly, but we submit to the court that the government fall short here with respect to the requisite intent required with respect to those substantive counts. But for the fact that the court below aired an allowing Miss Brown's intimate relationship with Mr. Williams to come in, the jury would not have been able to connote that she then maintained some level of insight or insider information as to how the business was said to operate. And simply because of this short lived intimacy, the jury, I believe, was influenced by it. The fact of the matter, Your Honor, is that our position is that there was no evidence to show that Miss Brown at any time acted with any fraudulent intent to defraud or deprive persons of their monies. In fact, as a participating customer initially of the program, again, as our related to the court, she suggested to friends and families and acted in good faith, making representations concerning the marketing of the program and how it was expected to run. She, along with many other of the witnesses who testified, who were also members and customers of the program, understood that there was a component of the program whereby as a member you would market and advertise the opportunity to rehabilitate one's credit, rebuild your credit, ultimately obtain a secured credit card, so and so forth. And- So essentially the argument that was made to the jury in the jury rejected? To some extent, Your Honor. But the jury was, in fact, I believe, clouded again by the evidence that was able to come in with respect to her relationship with Mr. Williams. But the fact that she, again, was acquitted of the conspiracy, we think flies in the face of the charges she's now convicted on. But you're not suggesting that the fact that she was acquitted of the conspiracy charge speaks to the substantive count? No, Your Honor, I'm not suggesting that. However, as it relates to this case, it is our position that the evidence is insufficient to show that she acted with the specific intent to defraud persons or that she knowingly participated in this scheme to defraud. Any representations that she made were certainly made in good faith and not with the intention to deceive. And so, Your Honor, we'd ask that the court reverse and remain the decision below with findings. Thank you, Your Honor. Yes. Thank you. I'll probably give this wrong, Mr. Kiwi Annozzi. You want to do it? You want to do it? You want to do it? All right. You're pretty close. Good morning, Judge Gray. Good morning, Judge Duncan. Good morning, Judge Wilson. I have the heaviest of burden to lift, but I'll take it one at a time. Spat enough with Judge Wilson's question. Yes, on behalf of Mr. Williams, we're denied that there was an intent to defraud in this case. And the reason I say that, Judge, in an analysis using the Lanham Act, which was cited in our brief. First of all, the court has to look at the statement in question. As we cited on page 19 of the brief, we cited using the Lanham Act, but then our pine case from the 10th second, 2009, we cited the time-wanna case 2007 from the second second, and the picture-hot case and the Papi Jones case from the 5th second in 2000. The relevance of those cases, Judge, in addition to the eviscuses, 1986, is you have to look at the statement in context. In other words, in analyzing the words that was advertised, it's just like the horrible case said, you're in good hands with all states. Those are the men that are the hand holding you. State Farm, like a neighbor, you see here, those are men that state Farm is next door to you. The words that were used specifically on Craigslist, appears on page 20 of the brief. It says, bad credit, no credit, no based on no problem. Then it goes to list a car or cars that are available to you. But then most importantly, it says, our credit rental program will allow you to build or rebuild your credit. You're not being told that you're getting a car to rent to own. The rental aspect of it, Judge, is when you rent this car, the website is clear. It's in a supplemental joint dependence in this case. For you to even participate in the program, you have to go online. In the supplemental joint dependence, you'll see the exemptions, the disclaimers, the notices. In other words, this is not something where you're running to somebody in the parking lot. And then you say, come and sign this, and then I'll take your money and that's it. No. What Mr. William did here was set up a system whereby everything had to go online. That's an excellent jury argument. Yes, Judge Beden is also an appellate argument because I will submit to the court that the first analysis missed by the court. In a motion for judgment of a quiddle and the motion of judgment of a quiddle at every state of the procedure, including the written motion as well, is that the analysis of the land I indicates that the statement is questioned is mere profit. And mere profit, Judge, doesn't rise up to the level of a statement that is the materiality that is required for something to be fraudulent. Specifically, it tells you that you have to rent. Rental is the first aspect. But then in addition to rental, it tells you in the ad itself, while driving what you like, in six to 12 months, you will be able to buy something you want with down payment. Anything you want with no down payment. Yes. But then, Judge, if you look at that statement, it's an invitation. Just like all states would say, you're in good hands with all states, come to us. This is telling you to rent your own. So for you to even participate in this program, Judge Duncan, you have to go online. You have to fill out the application. But of course, enterprise didn't rent your own. And enterprise only allowed leases of up to 30 days. That's where the problem lies, Judge Duncan. And then reading the brief of the government, and no mistil was not trial counsel in this case, and I was. And I'm familiar with the facts and circumstances of this case. If you go on to giant appendix, one of five. Specifically, there were testimony given by Marlon Paine. It appears on my cross examination, and even the government from page 532, and then Mr. Conningham, who's the prosecutor, a US editor, tried a case from page 518, on the cross examination of Mr. Paine, enterprise as Mr. Paine indicates, Judge, his statements on the oath. He specifically says, we are in competition. Mr. Williams showed up with a competitors vehicle. We then decided to get into a program with him, enterprising competition, then give him what they call a special rate for businesses. What does that do? That allows you to rent a car. As Mr. Paine, the gentleman that negotiated the deal with Mr. Williams, the preferred rate, Judge Duncan, that they have, and the agreement that they had, allowed them to rent a vehicle up to 12 months. That is what is mixed in the whole argument. Its enterprise may allow you to rent for 30 days, but what Mr. Williams had with enterprise, allowed you to rent for up to 12 months. Your employees, your independent contractors, there's even further argument made by the government in its brief. And then it was even made a court that enterprise, that after you rent with them, that Mr. Williams was pushing 2K tech. However, specifically, on the joint appendix, on the testimony of Mr. Carter, who is one of the employees at rent enterprise rental, everybody that rented an enterprise on that Mr. Carter had what needed a pay stop and then needed the name of the employer. Every documentation and reference to rental by Mr. Carter of enterprise indicates that the individual was employed someplace else, not with 2K tech. Additionally, and most importantly, Mr. Carter's statements on the cross-examination of Pearson 571 of the joint appendix, the only individual from enterprise rental that had 2K tech, I will summarize out of either laziness or for some reason, 2K tech listed as the employer, is Mr. Kenitia McEun, that appears on page 641, up to 622, and up to 650 of the joint appendix. Specifically, we respect to Mr. Kenitia McEun, on the forms that she filled out, she put in employee 2K tech. But the problem with that is, she also then has pay stop from the individual shown that this individual was employed someplace else. So there was no intent to deceive enterprise. Enterprise knew what they got into, enterprise was collected the money. But I thought that enterprise was told that you were renting company cars for your employees, or that Mr. Williams was waiting for a fleet of cars for his employees. No, Mr. Payne said that that conversation never even took place, that's why I directly on the court to read Mr. Mao and Payne's cross-examination of Pearson 532. And I will invite you to read the direct examination as well. He is the person that negotiated, he said he had conversations with him. All they wanted judge was to rent cars to people to use. Cars were rented, monies were being paid. They were not deceived. And why I submit that they were not deceived, because in addition to this information from Mr. Payne, the other gentleman that appeared on behalf of enterprise even told the jury on the oath that the logos that were being used by Mr. Williams was without the authorization of enterprise. However, part of the documents and records is this stipulation by the parties that it was authorized to use that logo, including enterprise logo, carsdirect.com. The ad speaks for itself, the website speaks for itself. The government in his brief, and as we argued before the court, everybody seems to have this notion that this is something that was happening in the parking lot and then his hiding information from people. Every person that appeared as a renter, for example, Chisa Riley, she walks to IBM. She said she needed a rental car, Billy Hanks had a job, Roderick Thompson had a job, Donica Boris had a job. All the witnesses called by the government, each had jobs. They rented cars before. Remember specifically that Donica Boris was the first one that had a testify? My specific question is, you've bought a car before, right? Yes. When you buy a car, you go through finance people so that you determine your monthly payments and everything else that goes with it, and she admitted. So I do not see where the government or the court could find anything other than an advertisement. Why would the cars repossess? The cars repossess because what happened was some individuals started calling enterprise rental. And then they wanted enterprise-related payments from Mr. Williams. Mr. Williams was running into problems, the problem being that part of this program requires you. Not only do you have to get this rental car at a reduced rate, because remember, he's getting it at a reduced rate, preferred rate negotiated with enterprise. But then Mr. Williams has to come up with money to make payments. These individuals getting low rental rates, insurance included, including maintenance, are supposed to advertise on cell telephones, advertise on cell other products on behalf of a company known as shop A2ZMOR.com. But then these individuals did not follow true on part of what they were supposed to do, some did not even make payments. So Mr. Williams ran into problems, and then when he ran into the problems, payments were not being made, enterprise needed the money. They started repossessing the cars after calling the individual. And how? That's how it all broke down and came apart. Thank you. Thank you. The sale? Good morning. I'm Barbara Sale from the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Maryland. And as Mr. Awana Gay noted, I was not trial counsel below, but I would be happy to try to answer any questions the court might have about the sufficiency or anything else in this case. This is one of the most cynical and pernicious fraud schemes I've ever seen 30 years of prosecuting fraud schemes. Because it targeted people who, as Mr. Awana Gay said, had jobs, but they had no way to get there. The very first witness, Ms. Dominique Love, I believe her name was, was a flabot of mist. She had a lab job, but she lived in Charles County, or St. Mary's County, Maryland, rural Southern Maryland, which is just a wilderness of strip malls. You can't get anywhere without a car. And she had no car, no credit. How long do you suppose she was going to be able to keep that job? So the people he targeted by his ads, and I included this brown in this, were people who were desperate for one of the necessities of life. And this is the very same fraud that he had perpetrated before with the apartment scheme and the 30 car rental scheme. I'm sorry, just before I forget, did Ms. Brown and I will ask on the rebuttal, object to the evidence of the relationship coming in. I just don't remember seeing that. I believe she did, Your Honor, and I don't have the page site, but I will certainly be happy to look at that. And I will ask. Thank you. Just to speak to Ms. Brown. No, but no, go on with the argument. I did not mean to disrupt your train. I was just checking something off. Well, I did want to focus on Ms. Brown. She counsel made the very same argument to the jury that counsel made to the court. And essentially both my learned friends did that. The jury rejected those arguments. This case was fully aired and well instructed and well tried. And there is really nothing in this record that suggests that Your Honor's ought to reverse the jury's determination in this case. This scheme is just peculiar. By placing an ad in the Penny saver on Craigslist, and I would note that the ads were not placed in the Wall Street Journal or Town and Country. These were, Penny saver is a circular that is sent by US mail to different zip codes and neighborhoods. And they were able to choose which zip code or neighborhood the Penny saver went to. And it's just a classified ad service. And the advertisement as it's stated, said auto rent to own. It is not ambiguous. Anybody reading that is going to believe this is the answer to my problems. I can't get to work. I'm going to lose my job. I can rent to own car, said credit program, bad credit, no credit, no problem. Wide selection of cars, trucks, SUV, low monthly payments, low down payment, insurance and maintenance included. Now, your eye might look at that and think, this is ridiculous. It's too good to be true. But the people who get bamboozled in fraud schemes tend to be either the desperate or the greedy. And these people were not greedy. They were desperate. These were people who absolutely needed this necessity to get by. They responded to the ad. And the fact that in Mr. Williams' mind, they had to enter into his multi-level marketing scheme as part of the getting the car doesn't fully add up. Some of these people were taken to enterprise the very day they called. They called. They spoke to Miss Brown and within 24 hours they were in enterprise parking lot, waiting for signing paperwork and waiting for their cars to come. The first lady who testified, I believe it was Dominique Love, only had the car for two days. Two days and the car was repossessed. I mean, she, and she was out $1,000 for a two-day car rental. That's just mean. That's the only way I can put it. It is just a mean scheme. And it is frankly something that Mr. as Judge Bredard found. What part was the misrepresentation? Material misrepresentation in fact. The material misrepresentations were that the people were ever going to be able to own the cars. You go to buy a car, to rent a car from enterprise car rental. There is no possible means by which you're going to end up owning that car. It wasn't a lease program where at the end of the lease with the dealership you have the option to buy. There was simply no potential. The other thing is this program was economically impossible. It could not succeed. And the same was true of the apartment program. The witnesses from enterprise testified that ordinarily the price to rent any car from enterprise would be from $800 up to maybe $1400 a month. This was $300 a month, $300 a month, with the upfront payment to Mr. Williams. So what had to happen is the person right there, Chuck, and one lady wrote, and she's a Riley wrote, a check for $5,000 to mispron in person. Right, a check for $5,000 up front. You get taken to the enterprise car lot. You get a car and you start making monthly payments to $300 a piece. It seems like a good idea, right, for the person who's getting a rental car for $300, it sounds like a great plan. But the fact is that Mr. Williams was not applying any of that upfront fee to the difference between $300 and $800. They were not paying for actual rental cars. They were paying, and the representations were, you pay us. You pay us. You don't pay enterprise. We'll take care of this. We've got this program. We've got this government rate. Or this corporate rate. We'll take care of everything. And these people believed it. And why wouldn't they? They were being told. Ms. Brown was the face of the operation. She's the one that people dealt with. She answered the phone. She placed the ad. She took people physically to the car rental places. And she told them, you're dealing with us. You're deal is with not with enterprise. Which is another way of saying, don't bother to read that fine print. Don't bother to read that part where it says you only have the car for two to four days. You're getting a monthly rate of $300. Was it the fine print there? I'm sorry. You said don't bother to find print. Yes, there was fine print there. Yes. And the witness of some of them were cross examined about that. They were asked, well, didn't you see that you were just signing for a car for a couple of days? And the response was, she told me your deal is with us, not with enterprise. It's unfortunate, but as I say, these people were desperate. They lived in areas where they couldn't get to work without a car and they didn't have cars. They needed that. Turning briefly to the 404B evidence in the case. This was not by any stretch of the imagination. Mr. Williams first brush with fraud. He had been convicted in 2005 of a virtually identical scheme in which he offered apartment rentals to people who had bag credit or no credit. And again, the deal was with him. He sublet apartments to people. Didn't pay the rent. And of course, they got evicted just as these cars got repossessed. It was exactly the same scheme dealing with a different necessity of life. And he got convicted. He got sentenced to 10 years, five suspended, served about three and a half years. He came out of jail. And what did he do? He started doing that very scheme again. And then it morphed into what I call the thrifty car rental scheme, which was the same scheme with thrifty car rental before he got in enterprise. And as Judge Bridalg found in sentencing Mr. Williams, he is absolutely undeterred. He is incorrigible and unrepentant. And he is one of these people who simply believes that money is better off in his pocket than in your pocket. Now, I willingly concede that Ms. Brown at the outset was a customer, a willing participant. She believed in the program. And part of Mr. Williams' stick, if you read the whole record, is that he's got this multi-level marketing scheme and all of these different comm businesses. And the idea is to get people working for his telephone plan or whatever it was. I frankly, the supplemental joint appendix has some of the website stuff in there. And I frankly invite the court to read it if you want to. I didn't understand it. It is simply marketing gobbledygook in my view. However, I was conceding that that's part of the plan. Ms. Brown bought into that. She thought, yes, we've got a program here. We can do this. But there came a point at which she had to know that she was walking these people into a very, very bad situation. She was taking them to enterprise. She was saying, congratulations to them when they got their car. And then two, four, six days, where a number of weeks later, their car was being used. She knew that. And she was convicted on, I think, six counts, six substantive counts, all of which were at a point in time when she'd been doing this for a little while. And I'm willing to concede that in September of 2010, she probably didn't realize there was anything wrong with this. By October of 2010, she probably didn't realize there was anything wrong with this. By November or December or January, when she had taken any number of victims to enterprise rental and she'd seen them lose their car, by some point, she knew. And the jury appropriately found that. I think that we can assume that the jury rejected the notion that she was a conspirator in part because they believed she wasn't in it from the beginning. And I'm fine with that. She probably wasn't in it from the beginning. But at some point, she became a willing conspirator in simply fleecing person after person after person. And that is the point at which she began to accrue convictions. Now, does the court have any other questions? There were a lot of issues here and I not addressed all of them. What about the sentencing aspect of the enhancement for managing five or more people? What people would manage? Judge Bredar did an excellent job with. What else was to decide that? Well, you're right. I'm from your argument. Judge Bredar, let me say this. He carefully and meticulously went through the guidelines and found various enhancements. Who were the five people? Let's just start with that. I do not believe that he did apply an enhancement for management of five people. That would be a... It did. He gave him three for an aggravating role. Let me aggravate role. Oh, okay. I'm sorry. The aggravating role was based upon managing five or more people. You gave two versus three. He gave him three. Let me just go through it, Judge. Maybe I'm not understanding the court. The base offense level was seven and the loss amount was... It gave it six levels. He added six for the number of victims, which is 47 and for the vulnerability of victims. That added an additional six points. Three for the aggravating role under 3B1.1B and two for obstruction of justice. Okay. I was just going to the aggravating role. What was that based upon? Let me see if I have it here. Managing five people or more. I think I don't recall, frankly, from looking at the sentencing transcript. I'll be happy to find this and supplement my answer in a letter. Well, you owe me the 28.js. That's the record, counsel. Well, I'm sorry. You're on the show. I don't want to let you... Excuse me. My recollection is that... You're not prepared to argue that then. No, no, no. Let me finish, please. What he said was... What he did was he took the entire scheme from the beginning to the end. There are certainly two people that he managed in his brown and his canvas, McCullough. His brother was also arguably a member of this scheme. He was part of the multi-level marketing scheme. I do not know the answer to it. Whether there were more than those three... The record did indicate that it was. And you're responsible for knowing the record. Yes, you are. And that's why I said, you're not prepared to argue that. You should know the record. Yes, sir. That's why I'm asking you. That's a appeal. That's a positive appeal. So the question is, what was the factual basis for that aggravating level? And it doesn't appear by your count, mine either, that there were more than three. And it says, for five. I believe... Do you see that it was wrong? No, you're on our doubt. I believe that the answer that... And I would like the opportunity to check this, but I believe the answer is, Judge Brdard took into consideration the entire course of conduct. I followed that. And it's like a continuum. But along that continuum, you've covered three people. Go ahead, continue on the continuum. I do not remember the names of those people, but he did not do it by himself. I'm sorry. I just don't know the answer to this. Just technically. Is that the only basis for a finding of an aggravating role? Is the number of people? No, it can also be the sophistication of the... Having a management role in a... Otherwise, sophisticated crime. Was that given as a reason? Your Honor, I again, apologize. I do not have that in front of me, and I do not remember what... Whether the words were said in sentencing... About that specific role in enhancement. Did the district judge adopt the pre-cens report? Yes, he did. And he actually went beyond that. And so there's some language in the pre-cens report. There should be your Honor. Leave there is. What about vulnerable victims? He found that... Yes, he did make a finding of vulnerable victims. He enhanced by three levels for the vulnerable victims and the number of the victims. Why were they vulnerable? They were vulnerable because, as I said at the outset, they were economically vulnerable. These are people who were desperate. They needed... That's the case because you're vulnerable just because you're poor. Poor people can't be intelligent. I didn't say for a moment, nor did I mean to... Why would they be vulnerable just because they're poor? They were vulnerable because they needed transportation. These people would lose their jobs. Because you need a car, you're vulnerable. In this case, yes, Your Honor. I invite you to read the testimony of the victims in this case. These people needed... They were dependent on cab rides, packs, and the kindness of friends to get them to work. How long do you suppose they would be able to keep their jobs on the church? Okay, well, once we start doing that counter, you make a great argument of a social argument. But the thing is that if you're going to start slicing off that, then if someone needs a suit of clothes, they're vulnerable victims. Your Honor, I've had countless fraud cases. Lots of the victims are not vulnerable. They're just greedy. They just want something for nothing. They just see something that they think they can have. And these are not those people. These are people who really and truly needed one of the necessities of modern life. And he targeted those people. He didn't target middle-class people who were able to get themselves to work and get cell phones. A lot of people target poor people. That's the case. A lot of the ads... Look at daytime ads. Night time ads. Talk about low credit. Is that targeting poor people? I submit that it probably is. If you're a mortgage repair, one of these mortgage repair scams, you're targeting people who are desperate. Who are going to lose their house if they don't do something. And instead of giving them some good advice or something they can use, you take more money from them. I submit that that is taking advantage of all the people. None of them go to jail. Oh, to prostitution? I'm trying. Good for you. I've gone way over my time and I apologize. No, you haven't gone over your time because I was asking you a question. Any other questions? No. Thank you. You said you're applying the worst person you ever seen before. That's the way they make it out to seem judge. But let me take you one at a time. In reference to the question from Judge Duncan as to whether there was an objection. Yes, there was. And you can find out on the joint appendix, starting at 345. And the discussion goes into 346 and 340. And then the court made a ruling in 349. And I appreciate that. And is it also an argument that you made in your brief? Absolutely. Judge, I did not make that argument because I focused. I made that objection. And then so did Miss Saki. But that argument was not specifically. I didn't have a brief. Thank you very much. You're welcome, Judge Duncan. And thank you for looking at it up. You're very much welcome, Judge. Respect to the question from Judge Wilson about the role in the offense, whether we can find out in the press intense investigation report. The answer to that is no. Joint appendix 2113 ruling the offense paragraph. I mean, paragraph 47 adjustment for ruling the offense. No. In other words, as I stated in my brief. I so simply stated in my brief that even the press intense writer starts on page 57. That even the press intense writer did not even find a rule adjustment in this case to give him the manager organizer or leader. So I don't know where the judge found that from. As Judge Gregory articulated, you have to have five or more people to support that position. I thought you could be a scheme that was otherwise extensive. I respectfully disagree with the court. I believe that what applies here seems to be what this court found in the United States, the South. Whereby the appellant at most was not a modern manager over property and assets of his business and not over people. And that would be found in a brief from page 58. And respect to the vulnerable victim that your honor, Judge Gregory brought up. What vulnerable victim, this court in the Etoiti case that you decided last year. Etoiti specifically says that every fraud involves somebody vulnerable. There has to be a nexus as this court articulated in Etoiti, what's second 2012. That vulnerable was clearly a runner since not in the law streets. How the victims vulnerability made them particularly susceptible to the criminal conduct. Specifically in this case, there's no vulnerability. People looking for a car. Many people are looking for a car. They have bad credit. They want to repay their credit. But there's nothing about it that makes them susceptible. There has to be some nexus. So, citing, I'm relying on the Etoiti case and the new man case that this court also relied on from the 7th-Second. How did Mr. Williams' program help their credit in bond? It was the way it's supposed to help their credit as the lady from, what is it called, the epifax. Her name is Buffy Christie. You will find that in page 516 of the joint appendix. The way it's supposed to work, George, if only he got there before the secret service and everybody ran in. Once you get the car from the company and you're renting, you then go through the process of applying for the secured credit card. Like Wells Fargo just behind the escort house. When you apply for the secured credit card, it helps you and assists you to build your credit. When you build your credit, your credit rate then increases. What's increasing? It gives you the ability to be able to own, in other words, you can go into a dealership. Now you've fixed your credit as a graduate. You can buy anything you want. You can buy it. It's like every time that they tell us that we can buy. Whenever you look on those ads from Toyota or Lexus, they always tell you that 4.9% APR until you show up on the door. All those ads... Getting used to apparently deceptive. In a way, George, you deceptive, but then you still have to find that material falsehood on the part of the appellant for you to call it puffery. I will call it puffery. As George learned on hands, quite eloquently articulated George, the puffery argument is even much better when you look at it as a totality of the circumstances of this case. All he's telling you is coming through the door. We can get you to do this. I've only practiced for a short 20 years, George, but I have never seen a case. Even when pre-booker and post-booker, where a George decides to go from a criminal history category of 3 to 4, based on the reasons of risk of recidivism, then turn around again in addition to going and doing a variance and upward departure from criminal history 3. Because you gotta remember, criminal history category 3 puts into consideration for purposes of guideline those offenses that you said he committed in PG County. After counting it, then you double counted to get into criminal history 4, from where he was originally. Then you add an addition to it, after you've arrived at 77 to 96 months, you then move him up to 120 more. In other words, you do double upward departure. George, I've never seen that. Even in child molestation cases, even in CEE cases, even in CCE cases, I have never seen such an upward departure. That I believe, George, is something that this court has to reverse because it's inconsistent. Lastly, on the 4, 4, be George, this court I will rely on the Hernandez case. In the Hernandez case, George, the fact that the defendant may have been involved in drug activity in the past does not in and of his self-provided sufficient nexus to the charged conduct. Anything dealing with apartment complex or PSG has nothing to do with a rent on business. As George Mott wrote in the opinion, dealing with 4, 4, be, it has to do with the remoteness of it. The argument to George Bridae is it is so remote, 5 years past. And then in addition to being 5 years past, George, it is unrelated to the charged conduct. I didn't have time to bring to the attention of the court by way of writing a decision that came out August 26th from the 10th second. I was cited for the purposes of record. The United States was dismissed. Where the case was reversed on the 4, 4, be, and in that particular case, George, it's a case where it's a two-year-old drug deal in another case. Based on those reasons and any other reasons that may appear to the court, I submit to your honor that this case requires a reversal. It's maplory. The writer, as J. Lenin says, and specifically states, is held to what they've signed and what they've written. They've read it. They signed on to the program. They're bound by it. Based on those reasons and any other reasons that may appear to the court, I asked that this case be overturned and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this court ruling. And that the sentence in this case be violated because it's among reasonable sentences based on the facts of the case. Thank you for your time and attention. Mr. O'Hangey and Saki, I know that you both are court-appointed again. We especially thank you on behalf of the court for taking this assignment. We've had tough cases and we couldn't do our work without it and we really appreciate it. We thank you. You're very much welcome, Madam. If I may tell you what was the price, I actually did this tool we trial pro bono. Oh, well, thank you even more so. We appreciate it. Miss Sales, thank you for your zealous and able representation of the United States. We're going to ask the clerk to adjourn the court's signing a die and then we're going to come down and greet council