Mark beckham charlotte

Attorney's Office. Beckham's license to practice as a CPA was revoked following his federal mail fraud conviction in Please Sign In and use this article's on page print button to print this article. Louis Business Journal. Feb 1, Related Content. Construction company owner pleads guilty to wire fraud. Former general manager of West County dealership gets prison for fraud.

The government concedes on appeal that, post- Marinello, Jury Instruction 9 is erroneous. However, the government contends that the district court cured the instructional error through the use of a special verdict form and that, even if the special verdict form did not cure the error, the error was harmless.

Dvorak, F. Neder v. See Marinello, S. Because the IRS indisputably obtained the day planner as a functional part of the audit during the audit, if Beckham provided the IRS with the planner, that would be an act that has a nexus in time, causation, and logic to the pending IRS audit.

See 3 Trial Tr. Because, then, the government presented uncontroverted evidence that Beckham gave Agent Grinstead the day planner—evidence that Beckham did not attempt to dispute, see Inman, F. See id. We therefore find the jury instruction error harmless as to the nexus requirement. In addition to the nexus requirement, Marinello requires a defendant to act with knowledge or a reason to know of a pending or imminent IRS proceeding, such as an IRS audit.

Marinello, S. Significantly, Beckham provided Agent Grinstead with the planner in response to a request for information undisputably made as part of the audit. We therefore find that no rational jury could find Beckham was unaware of a pending IRS proceeding—the audit—at the time the IRS received the day planner.

Because we conclude that no rational jury could find reasonable doubt as to either of the two Marinello elements, we find that failure to instruct the jury on those elements was harmless. Bailey, F. Merrell, F. As part of her testimony, she discussed statutory requirements and regulatory tests for whether a shareholder has materially participated in a business.

Beckham alleges that her testimony was improper because she instructed the jury on 1 the economic substance doctrine; and 2 the law regarding material participation. Thus, even if Parman testified improperly, her testimony did not influence the jury because it acquitted Beckham of the charges about which she testified. See United States v. Shores, F. Webb, F. Beckham next argues that the district court improperly denied his motion to suppress evidence that the IRS obtained after the civil audit morphed into a criminal investigation.

Specifically, Beckham alleges that any evidence gathered after the IRS discovered he lacked a valid CPA license was inadmissible because, at that point, the IRS began investigating him for criminal activity while maintaining that it was merely conducting a civil audit of Horseman.

Wadena, F. Whether the IRS had firm indications of fraud is a question of fact. At most, the IRS merely suspected the case might involve fraud until it discovered the sham loan, at which point it suspended the civil audit. This Court has found no Grunewald violation when a civil auditor failed to inform defendants about a simultaneous criminal investigation conducted by a different IRS agent.

Beckham moved to suppress all evidence gathered after July 23, However, the only count of conviction hinged on evidence provided to the IRS in January —six months before that cutoff date.

Because the IRS collected this evidence before the date Beckham alleges a criminal investigation began, Beckham cannot claim that it was the fruit of that investigation.

Finally, Beckham argues that the district court erred in denying his motion for a mistrial based on improper statements Horseman made while testifying. United States v.

A mistrial is a drastic remedy for jury exposure to improper witness statements—a remedy which we disfavor. Sherman, F. Caver, F. The government asked Horseman if he ever stopped paying Beckham pursuant to the subscription agreements. See Branch, F. While the district court did not give a curative instruction, it failed to do so because Beckham refused such an instruction.

Peyton, F. Moreover, whether Beckham convinced Horseman to enter into a fraudulent transaction is irrelevant to the sole count of conviction—obstructing and impeding administration of the internal revenue laws—because fraud is not a requirement for that offense. Newsletter Sign up to receive the Free Law Project newsletter with tips and announcements.