## Facts

- The U.S. Postal Service sometimes limited certain procurements to “minority enterprises,” defined as businesses at least 51% minority-owned and actually controlled in management and day-to-day operations.
- In 1986, the Postal Service sought bids from eligible minority enterprises to supply a large quantity of shoring beams (metal bars used to secure mail containers inside mail trucks).
- Bids were submitted by firms including Martinez Manufacturing, Solis Industries, and Hartec Enterprises; after issues with Hartec’s bid, the contract was awarded to Solis Industries (later known as Soltech).
- The government alleged that Anthony Loscalzo, Andrew Loscalzo, Merry Stumpf, David H. Siegel, and Albert L. Boemo obstructed the Postal Service’s minority-enterprise contracting function by creating corporations that appeared minority-controlled on paper but were actually directed by nonminority participants.
- The alleged scheme used non-participating minority individuals as “figurehead” presidents to satisfy the program’s ownership-and-control requirement while nonminority participants ran the companies and made the decisions.
- Trial evidence included testimony from purported minority principals (including Anthony Martinez and Steve Solis) indicating they had little real involvement in ownership, management, or daily operations of the bidding entities.
- After award of the shoring-beam contract, production work was subcontracted to a nonminority business, supporting the government’s claim that the certified minority firm did not truly control performance.
- The defendants were charged with conspiracy to defraud the United States by impairing the Postal Service’s administration of its minority-enterprise program, and with 31 counts of mail fraud based on mailings used to execute the contracting scheme.
- At trial, the government pursued the conspiracy count on two routes: (1) a traditional agreement-plus-overt-act theory; and (2) an aiding-and-abetting-style theory under which a defendant could be found guilty of conspiracy if the defendant knowingly performed an act intended to further the conspiracy.
- The jury convicted the defendants. Loscalzo, Boemo, and Stumpf appealed various aspects of the convictions and sentences.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain convictions for conspiracy to defraud the United States and mail fraud based on misrepresentations about minority ownership and control in connection with a Postal Service set-aside contract.
2. Whether the conspiracy instructions improperly allowed conviction on an aiding-and-abetting theory (or otherwise constructively amended the indictment) and whether the defendants were unfairly surprised by that theory.
3. Whether any defendant established ineffective assistance of counsel under *Strickland v. Washington*.
4. Whether the district court committed reversible error in sentencing (including loss calculations and enhancements), restitution, or denial of a new trial based on newly discovered evidence.

## Decision

- The Seventh Circuit affirmed the convictions and sentences.
- The court held that the evidence permitted a rational jury to find a scheme to defraud the Postal Service by using corporations with figurehead minority presidents to obtain minority-enterprise contracts, and to find use of the mails in furtherance of that scheme.
- The court upheld the conspiracy instructions, concluding the aiding-and-abetting route to liability was legally permissible on this record and did not unfairly surprise the defendants or broaden the charges beyond the indictment.
- The court rejected ineffective-assistance claims because the defendants did not show both deficient performance and resulting prejudice.
- The court upheld the district court’s sentencing determinations and restitution order and found no basis to reverse the denial of a new trial.

## Legal Principles

- A conspiracy to defraud the United States includes an agreement to impair, obstruct, or defeat a lawful government function by deceitful or dishonest means, even if the government does not suffer a direct monetary loss.
- Mail-fraud liability may be based on a scheme to obtain government contract benefits through materially false statements or omissions about eligibility conditions, where mailings are used to execute the scheme.
- A defendant may be convicted under an aiding-and-abetting theory even if aiding and abetting is not separately charged, so long as the defendant is not subjected to unfair surprise; the defendant bears the burden to show unfair surprise.
- Conspiracy instructions may permit conviction where the jury finds either knowing participation in the agreement plus an overt act, or knowing acts intended to further the unlawful plan (as charged and supported by the evidence).
- Ineffective assistance of counsel requires proof of deficient performance and a reasonable probability that, but for the deficiency, the result would have been different.
- Sentencing findings (including loss determinations, planning or role adjustments, and restitution) are reviewed deferentially and will be affirmed when supported by the record and within the district court’s discretion.

## Conclusion

The Seventh Circuit affirmed the defendants’ conspiracy and mail-fraud convictions arising from a Postal Service minority set-aside contracting scheme in which corporations were allegedly structured with nominal minority presidents while nonminority participants exercised real control, and it held that the jury could be instructed on an aiding-and-abetting route to liability without a separate charge absent unfair surprise, while also rejecting challenges based on counsel performance, sentencing, restitution, and post-trial motions.


United States v. Loscalzo, 18 F.3d 374 (1994)