United States v. Podlucky
| Decision Date | 26 March 2019 |
| Docket Number | Criminal No. 11-37 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. KARLA S. PODLUCKY and G. JESSE PODLUCKY, Defendant/Petitioners. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Pennsylvania |
See Civ. Nos. 15-1339 & 15-1340
Petitioners Karla S. Podlucky ("Karla") and G. Jesse Podlucky ("Jesse"), on October 15, 2015, filed a pro se Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 and affidavit in support thereof (Doc. Nos. 299-310). The Government filed its initial response on February 4, 2016 (Doc. No. 318), to which Petitioners replied on March 15, 2016 (Doc. No. 319). On August 30, 2016, Petitioners filed a Motion for Expansion of the Record and for an Evidentiary Hearing, as well as briefs in support thereof (Doc. Nos. 324-27). The Government responded to these motions on September 21, 2016 (Doc. No. 329), and Petitioners replied on October 25, 2016 (Doc. No. 330). Upon consideration of these filings, the Court denies Petitioners' motions pursuant to Section 2255, and denies as moot their motions for expansion of the record and for an evidentiary hearing, for the reasons set forth below.
The parties are very familiar with the facts in this matter, so the Court will not set forth any lengthy factual summary. Suffice to say that this case involved money laundering in connection with fraud associated with a beverage company known as LeNature's, Inc. Co-defendant Gregory J. Podlucky ("Greg") was the one-time majority shareholder and chief executive officer of LeNature's, and the key figure in fraud allegations brought against officers, employees, and clients of LeNature's. Greg is the wife of Karla, and Jesse is their son. Jesse was also employed by LeNature's from 2003 through 2006 as a bookkeeper. Beginning in 1998, Greg implemented an elaborate scheme to defraud investors and lenders by falsely inflating LeNature's sales and revenue figures so as to obtain capital.1 Money stolen by Greg as part of this scheme was used to make a number of non-business-related purchases, including roughly $33 million worth of rare and valuable jewels. The fraud was detected after LeNature's was forced into bankruptcy in 2006. Around that time and continuing after, Greg and Petitioners proceeded to attempt to liquidate and conceal certain assets obtained pursuant to the fraudulent scheme, particularly the jewelry. This was done through a complicated series of sales, transfers, and gifts, filtered through various legal entities created by the Podluckys.
On or about February 8, 2011, a grand jury returned a five-count indictment against Greg, Karla, and Jesse. Count One charged the defendants with conspiracy to commit money laundering from October 26, 2006 through December 31, 2010, by selling jewelry purchased unlawfully with funds stolen from LeNature's and completing transactions distributing the proceeds to various separate legal entities so as to conceal and disguise the nature, location, source, ownership, and control of the jewelry, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h). Counts Two and Four charged the defendants with engaging in specific financial transactions which involved the proceeds of specified unlawful activity, knowing that the property involved represented the proceeds of some form of unlawful activity, and knowing that the transaction was designed in whole or in part to conceal and disguise the location, source, ownership and control of the proceeds, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1956(a)(1)(B)(i) and 2. Specifically, Count Two involvedthe deposit of a check for $100,000.00 drawn by Jesse from the account of Twilight Trust, into the account of the attorney representing Greg in the related criminal matters involving the fraud at LeNature's at Criminal Nos. 09-278 and 09-279. Count Four involved the deposit of a check for $100,000.00 drawn by Karla from the account of Green Special Advisors at Ameritrade into the account of the same attorney. Counts Three and Five charged the defendants with knowingly engaging in specific financial transactions in criminally derived property with a value greater than $10,000.00, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1957(a) and 2. Specifically, Count Three involved the use of a Discover Card for the purchase of patio furniture in the amount of $11,336.70. Count Five involved the withdrawal of $80,021.79 to purchase 11 cashiers checks to be distributed to various payees.
On June 20, 2011, after unsuccessfully attempting to convince the Court to suppress evidence seized from the Podluckys' home, co-defendant Greg pled guilty to Count One of the indictment at Criminal No. 11-37, charging him with conspiracy to commit money laundering, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h), as well as Count Three of the indictment at Criminal No. 09-278, charging him with income tax evasion, in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7201, and Count Twenty-four of the superseding indictment at Criminal No. 09-279, charging him with mail fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1341. In addition, he acknowledged his responsibility for the substantive offenses alleged at Counts Two through Five in this case, and for a number of counts at Criminal Nos. 09-278 and 09-279. Pursuant to the plea agreement entered into between Greg and the Government, Greg would be subject to a term of imprisonment of not more than 20 years, a term of supervised release of 5 years, no fine, a special assessment of $300, and restitution as determined by the Court. On October 20, 2011, the Court sentenced Greg to 60 months' imprisonment at Criminal No. 09-278, 240 months' imprisonment at Criminal No. 09-279, and 240 months' imprisonment at Criminal No. 11-37, all to be served concurrently, and to be followed by 3 years' supervised release at Criminal No. 09-278, 5 years' supervised release at Criminal No. 09-279, and 3 years' supervised release at Criminal No. 11-37, all to be served concurrently. The Court further ordered restitution at Criminal No. 09-279 in the amount of $661,324,329.81.
On November 29, 2011, after a lengthy jury trial, Petitioner Jesse was found guilty on all five counts of the indictment in this case, and Petitioner Karla was found guilty at Counts Three, Four, and Five. On May 21, 2012, the Court entered judgment as to Karla and Jesse: Karla was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 51 months to be followed by three years' supervised release at each of Counts Three, Four, and Five, to be served concurrently, and Jesse was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 108 months to be followed by three years' supervised release at each of Counts One through Five, to be served concurrently. Each forfeited all rights to a Charles Schwab account totaling $1,372,966.04, and an in personam judgment in the amount of $1,443,894.78 was entered against each. Petitioners subsequently appealed and challenged their convictions and sentences, raising a number of claims, including that the evidence adduced at trial was insufficient to establish their guilt. On May 27, 2014, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the Petitioners' convictions and sentences.
On October 15, 2015, Petitioners, acting pro se, each filed a motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255.2 That same day, in accordance with United States v. Miller, 197 F.3d 644 (3d Cir. 1999), the Court issued an Order advising Petitioners that the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 ("AEDPA") prohibits consideration of a second or successive habeaspetition absent certification from the Third Circuit that certain very specific and rare circumstances exist. With that in mind, Petitioners were ordered to advise the Court as to how they wished to proceed, and specifically, whether they wished to have their motions ruled upon as filed and lose the ability to file successive petitions absent Third Circuit certification, or whether they wished to withdraw the motions and file all-inclusive Section 2255 petitions within the one-year statutory period of the AEDPA. Petitioners responded on November 9, 2015, indicating that they wished to proceed under their motions as filed. As noted above, several additional documents were subsequently filed in connection with these motions.3
Pro se pleadings are held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972); Holley v. Department of Veterans Affairs, 165 F.3d 244, 247 (3d Cir. 1999). However, even a pro se plaintiff must be able to prove a "'set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.'" Haines, 404 U.S. at 520-21 (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957)).
Petitioners bring their pro se motions pursuant to Section 2255. This statute permits a "prisoner in custody under sentence of a court established by Act of Congress claiming the right to be released upon the ground that the sentence was imposed in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States . . . [to] move the court which imposed the sentence to vacate, set asideor correct the sentence." 28 U.S.C. § 2255(a). An evidentiary hearing is not required on a Section 2255 motion if "the motion and the files and records of the case conclusively show that the prisoner is entitled to no relief." 28 U.S.C. § 2255(b).
Petitioners raise five grounds upon which they believe relief should be granted: (1) violation of their First Amendment right to freedom of religion; (2) violation of their Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of trial counsel; (3) violation of their Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of appellate counsel; (4) violation of their Fifth Amendment right to due process with regard to government misconduct, prosecutorial misconduct, and malicious prosecution; and (5) actual innocence and miscarriage of justice. (Petitioners' Motions to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence by a Person in Federal Custody (Doc. Nos. 299 at 10 and 305 at 10)).4 However, although only two of these grounds...
To continue reading
Request your trial