United States v. Bartko

Decision Date23 August 2013
Docket NumberNo. 12–4298.,12–4298.
PartiesUNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff–Appellee, v. Gregory BARTKO, Defendant–Appellant.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

ARGUED:Donald Franklin Samuel, Garland, Samuel & Loeb, Atlanta, Georgia, for Appellant. Kristine L. Fritz, Office of the United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. ON BRIEF:Amanda R. Clark–Palmer, Garland, Samuel & Loeb, Atlanta, Georgia, for Appellant. Thomas G. Walker, United States Attorney, Jennifer P. May–Parker, Assistant United States Attorney, Office of the United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before KEENAN and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and HENRY E. HUDSON, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Virginia, sitting by designation.

Affirmed by published opinion. Judge FLOYD wrote the opinion, in which Judge KEENAN and Judge HUDSON concurred.

FLOYD, Circuit Judge:

Appellant Gregory Bartko was charged by a superseding indictment with conspiracy to commit mail fraud, launder money instruments, engage in unlawful monetary transactions, make false statements, and obstruct proceedings of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371 (Count One); mail fraud and aiding and abetting, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341 and 2 (Count Two through Count Five); sale of unregistered securities and aiding and abetting, in violation of 15 U.S.C. §§ 77e, 77x, and 18 U.S.C. § 2 (Count Six); and making false statements to a federal agent in January and October 2009, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a)(2) (Counts Seven and Eight). Before trial, and pursuant to the government's motion, the district court dismissed Counts Seven and Eight, as well as two of the objects of the conspiracy in Count One—making false statements and obstructing SEC proceedings. After a thirteen-day trial, the jury convicted Bartko of the remaining counts.

Thereafter, Bartko filed four motions for a new trial, all of which the district court denied. The district court subsequently sentenced Bartko to 272 months' imprisonment. This timely appeal followed.

In his appeal, Bartko maintains that the district court erred in denying two of his motions for a new trial, improperly considered an ex parte sealed document submitted by the government, abused its discretion by not instructing the jury on accomplice/informant testimony and on multiple conspiracies, and improperly imposed Sentencing Guidelines enhancements based on the amount of loss, the number of victims, and Bartko's status as a registered broker/dealer at the time of the offenses. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a). Discerning no reversible error, we affirm both Bartko's conviction and sentence.

I.

From 2004 to 2005, Bartko was the leader and organizer of a financial scheme that involved securing money from investors to provide funding for two private equity funds, the Caledonian Fund and the Capstone Fund. John Colvin, Scott Hollenbeck, Darryl Laws, Rebecca Plummer, and Levonda Leamon participated in the scheme. As a part of their scheme, the parties mailed, faxed, and e-mailed correspondence to one another and engaged in banking transactions.

Bartko was a securities attorney, investment banker, and registered broker/dealer. Laws was also an investment banker who, along with Bartko, created the Caledonian Fund. Colvin was the president of Colvin Enterprises and a co-managing general partner with Scott Hollenbeck of Franklin Asset Exchange. Leamon and Plummer were financial advisors who owned and operated Legacy Resource Management (LRM).

In January 2004, Bartko was seeking investors for the Caledonian Fund. On January 15, 2004, Colvin sent to Bartko a fax regarding an investment opportunity that one of Colvin's companies, Webb Financial Services, was offering. The articles of incorporation for the company were attached. They listed Scott Hollenbeck as the initial registered agent of Webb Group. These materials made fraudulent claims that the principal and interest were guaranteed and that the investments were insured. On January 15 and 16, 2004, Bartko performed a record check on Colvin with the National Association of Securities Dealers. On February 17, 2004, he made the same record check on Hollenbeck. According to those records, both had past allegations of forgery and both had been fired from securities-related jobs. Hollenbeck's check also showed that his securities license had been suspended for violations of securities rules.

Bartko sent a fax to Laws on January 19, 2004, which detailed Colvin's fraudulent fundraising methods. For example, one page of the materials stated that [p]rincipal investment is secured & insured [and that the] [i]nterest rate declared is guaranteed[.] In a fax that Colvin sent to Bartko on February 9, 2004, proposing an agreement between Franklin Asset Exchange and the Caledonian Fund, Hollenbeck was referred to in the materials as a “Co–Managing General Partner” of Franklin Asset Exchange and as “the founder and creator of both Franklin Asset Exchange, LLC and The Webb Group Financial Services, Inc.

Colvin ultimately agreed to raise $3 million for the Caledonian fund through the Franklin Asset Exchange. Although the March 30, 2004, agreement to raise the money was signed by Colvin, it was Hollenbeck who actually solicited and secured the money from the individual investors.

In April 2004, the North Carolina Securities Regulatory Agency issued a cease and desist order directing Hollenbeck to stop selling securities in North Carolina. This arose from his involvement in a separate investment scheme regarding Mobile Billboards of America (Mobile Billboards). Bartko, along with his co-counsel, Wes Covington, provided legal representation to Hollenbeck on this matter. During the course of that representation, Hollenbeck provided Bartko with information concerning how he had sold the Mobile Billboards investments. Hollenbeck informed Bartko that he had promised investors that their money was guaranteed and insured. He also provided to Bartko a copy of his promotionalmaterials, including an application for an insurance policy that he used to show that the investment was insured.

From January 15, 2004, to May 6, 2004, Hollenbeck fraudulently raised large amounts of money for the Caledonian Fund, as well as for other investments, from a total of 171 investors. He then deposited the money into Franklin Asset Exchange or some similar account. The money was not separated but was instead comingled. He sent the money to various entities, as directed by Colvin.

Hollenbeck and Colvin raised $701,000 for the Caledonian Fund, which was wired to the Caledonian Fund on four separate occasions between February and May 2004. Bartko and Laws used the money to pay salaries and expenses. None of it was used for investments or loans.

In late 2004, after Colvin failed to send Bartko the $3 million that he had promised, Bartko terminated their relationship. In November 2004, the Caledonian Fund dissolved. The $701,000 in the fund was not returned to the investors.

Almost immediately after dissolution of the Caledonian Fund, Bartko began the Capstone Fund. Hollenbeck was the primary fundraiser. Nevertheless, on December 8, 2004, during a deposition with the SEC concerning Mobile Billboards, Hollenbeck was asked what investments he was currently selling. He failed to mention the Capstone Fund. Bartko and his co-counsel, Wes Covington, were at the deposition representing Hollenbeck, but neither one corrected Hollenbeck's false statement.

Although securities law disallowed it, Hollenbeck continued selling securities and raising money for the Capstone Fund through fraudulent means. Moreover, some of the investors were not accredited or sophisticated investors, as required by securities law. To be an accredited investor, one's net worth or net income must reach a certain threshold.

On January 11, 2005, Bartko met with potential investors at LRM. Around the same time as this meeting, Bartko asked Plummer and Leamon whether LRM would receive money from the Capstone Fund's investors and then send the money back to the Capstone Fund. Because the money that Hollenbeck had raised—over $1 million at that point—was fraudulently obtained and because the Capstone Fund was an unregistered fund, Bartko wanted LRM to appear to be the investor. Plummer and Leamon agreed, and on January 19, 2005, they opened a bank account with TriStone Bank for the purpose of receiving the Capstone Fund money. TriStone, however, eventually closed their account and so, at Bartko's suggestion, they opened an account with Wachovia.

Also on January 19, 2005, Bartko issued reimbursement checks to several investors. But then Bartko instructed Hollenbeck to have the investors receiving the reimbursements endorse the checks and return them to LRM. Bartko sent some of the checks to Hollenbeck to return to the investors because he did not have their addresses. Instead, Hollenbeck forged the signatures of the investors on the checks and embezzled the proceeds.

The money that was sent to LRM was returned to the Capstone Fund. Thus, with the exception of one individual, no refunds were actually made to the investors. All told, Bartko received $2,684,928.86 from forty Capstone Fund investors.

In February 2005, the North Carolina Secretary of State learned that Hollenbeck was continuing to sell investments for Bartko, and it advised the SEC of that fact. On March 14, 2005, Alex Rue, an attorney for the SEC, confronted Bartko. Bartko then filed an interpleader action in the Middle District of North Carolina on May 26, 2005, and ultimately returned ninety-four percent of the Capstone Fund money to the court.

Bartko eventually stood trial for conspiracy to commit mail fraud, launder money instruments, and engage in unlawful monetary transactions (Count One); mail fraud and aiding and abetting ...

To continue reading

Request your trial
120 cases
  • United States v. Taylor, 18-4414
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit
    • November 5, 2019
    ...of another investigation into similar conduct would affect the jury’s assessment of Santiful’s credibility. See United States v. Bartko , 728 F.3d 327, 338-39 (4th Cir. 2013) (withheld evidence not material if cumulative of other impeachment information); see also United States v. Parker , ......
  • Dobyns v. United States
    • United States
    • U.S. Claims Court
    • September 16, 2014
    ...some of the parties' proposed redactions; other proposed redactions are rejected as unwarranted. See United States v. Bartko, 728 F.3d 327, 342-43, 347 (4th Cir. 2013); see generally, Baystate Techs, Inc. v. Bowers, 283 Fed. Appx. 808, 100 (Fed. Cir. 2006), Allied Tech. Corp. v. United Stat......
  • State ex rel. Clemons v. Larkins
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • November 24, 2015
    ...depends almost entirely on the value of the evidence relative to the other evidence mustered by the state."); United States v. Bartko, 728 F.3d 327, 340 (4th Cir.2013) (nondisclosure not material under Brady where "record reveals overwhelming evidence of [defendant's] guilt"); United States......
  • Woodfolk v. Maynard
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit
    • May 23, 2017
    ...not challenge on appeal the district court's denial of his Rule 59(e) motion, we do not address that issue. See United States v. Bartko, 728 F.3d 327, 335 (4th Cir. 2013) (recognizing that issues not raised in opening appellate brief are waived).5 In an effort to confirm our jurisdiction ov......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
  • Trials
    • United States
    • Georgetown Law Journal No. 110-Annual Review, August 2022
    • August 1, 2022
    ...failure to correct witness’s false testimony about incentive to testify improper because prosecutor knew statement false); U.S. v. Bartko, 728 F.3d 327, 337 (4th Cir. 2013) (prosecutor’s failure to correct witness’s false testimony that government did not make any promises improper because ......
  • GIVE 'EM THE OL' RAZZLE DAZZLE: THE ETHICS OF TRIAL ADVOCACY AND THE CASE OF KYLE RITTENHOUSE.
    • United States
    • Suffolk Journal of Trial & Appellate Advocacy Vol. 27 No. 2, June 2022
    • June 1, 2022
    ...that they possessed an identical copy, obtained from their client, before filing the complaint). (101) See United States v. Bartko, 728 F.3d 327, 342 (4th Cir. 2013). (102) See id. at 342 (internal citation omitted). (103) See id. (104) See United States v. Shaeffer Equip. Co., 11 F.3d 450,......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT