If no lawyer is listed, call 918-582-6422 and MoreLaw will help you find a lawyer for free.

Description: Missoula, Montana criminal defense lawyer represented Defendant charged with fraud.

Using multiple aliases and businesses, Oliver defrauded
dozens of victims of over $7 million. In 2014, Oliver
pleaded guilty to federal charges of wire fraud, money
laundering, and structuring. Oliver was sentenced to prison
for 100 months followed by 36 months of supervised release.
He was also ordered to pay over $5 million in restitution to
his victims.

After serving his sentence, Oliver began his three-year
term of supervised release in October 2020. As a condition
of his supervised release, Oliver had to provide his federal
probation officer with any requested financial information
and notify the officer of any material changes in his
economic circumstances. He was also ordered not to incur
any new lines of credit without the prior approval of his
probation officer. The probation officer directed Oliver to
submit a monthly financial report detailing his income,
expenses, and net worth. But for the first five months of his
supervision, Oliver provided no such report.

In March 2021, Oliver finally turned in a monthly
supervision report. The form on which Oliver submitted the
report warned him that “[a]ny false statements may result in
revocation of probation, supervised release, or parole, in
addition to 5 years imprisonment, a $250,000 fine, or both.
Per 18 U.S.C. § 1001.” Oliver signed the report and certified
that all the information furnished was complete and correct.
After reviewing the report, Oliver’s probation officer
determined that it was missing some financial information
and supporting documents. When confronted, Oliver
acknowledged that he omitted some supporting
documentation and facts from the report. The probation
officer then petitioned the district court to revoke Oliver’s
supervised release for failing to provide accurate financial
information and traveling outside the state without
permission.

The probation officer didn’t stop there. He spoke with
“Rose” Ozlem Ture, Oliver’s supervisor, and learned that
Oliver traveled outside the state on other occasions without
permission, collected payments in cash and personal checks,
once carried about $7,000 in cash, and used an unauthorized
PayPal account. Soon after, the probation officer discovered
materials in Oliver’s possession showing that he was
operating four companies without permission.

Nor did the officer stop there. He uncovered that Oliver
used another man, Kirkland Conner, to start multiple
companies, open bank accounts, sell items, and deposit
checks. Oliver ran the businesses while informing Conner
of only some of the financial arrangements. According to
Conner, Oliver admitted that he could not start these
companies by himself because of his legal troubles and
federal supervision. Based on this investigation, the
probation officer found that Oliver did not disclose multiple
sources of income that could have been used to pay
restitution. Specifically, the probation officer found that
Oliver received over $30,000 in income, but paid only $600
in restitution.

A few weeks later, the probation officer filed an
amended petition for revocation of supervised release. This
time the probation officer alleged that Oliver committed a
new crime—violating 18 U.S.C. § 1001. The petition
specified that Oliver submitted the March 2021 monthly
supervision report with false statements about his vehicles,
bank accounts, storage units, and net earnings.
In May 2021, the district court held a revocation hearing.
Oliver contested the violations, but the district court found
him in violation of § 1001 for making false statements in the
monthly report as well as of other supervision conditions.
The district court revoked Oliver’s supervised release and
sentenced him to 24 months of imprisonment, followed by
another 32 months of supervised release.

Oliver now appeals. First, he argues that the district
court improperly revoked his supervised release based on the
§ 1001 violation since he was entitled to the judicial
proceeding exception to that statute. Second, Oliver
contends that his constitutional rights were violated by the
district court’s finding that he committed a crime by a
preponderance of the evidence. We review Oliver’s
questions of statutory interpretation and constitutional rights
de novo. United States v. Vilchez, 967 F.2d 1351, 1353 (9th
Cir. 1992).

Outcome: Affirmed.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: