United States v. Miller

1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. DAVID H. MILLER,

CRIMINAL ACTION No. 1:17-cr-213-RDA

United States District Court, E.D. Virginia, Alexandria Division

September 11, 2024

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Rossie D. Alston, United States District Judge

This matter comes before the Court on pro se^[1] Defendant David H. Miller's Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Verdict (Dkt. 302); Motion for Discovery and Appointment of Public Defender (Dkt. Nos. 314; 315); Motions for an Evidentiary Hearing and Appointment of Counsel (Dkt. Nos. 320; 321); Motion for Discovery and Appointment of Public Defender (Dkt. 323); and Motions for a Discovery Hearing and Appointment of Public Defender (Dkt Nos. 324; 325). This Court has dispensed with oral argument as it would not aid in the decisional process. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 78(b); Local Civil Rule 7(J). This matter has been fully briefed and is now ripe for disposition. Considering the Motions together with the government's Memoranda in Opposition (Dkt. Nos. 313; 317; 330), and Defendant's Reply (Dkt. 318), this Court DENIES the Motions to Appoint Counsel; DENIES the Motions for Discovery DENIES the Motion for an Evidentiary Hearing; and DENIES and DISMISSES the Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Verdict for the reasons that follow.^[2]

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

The factual background set forth here is drawn from the Fourth Circuit's opinion in United States v. Miller, 41 F.4th 302 (4th Cir. 2022). The facts of this case are as follows:

From 2011 to 2014, Defendant worked as the General Counsel and Chief Compliance Officer at SkyLink Air and Logistic Support (“Skylink”). Id. at 306. During this period, Defendant and his wife, Lynn Miller (“Mrs. Miller”),^[3] created two fake law firms (Federal Legal Associates and the Straile Group). Id. Then, as a SkyLink employee, Defendant “exchanged” emails with individuals at these “bogus” firms and purported to hire them to perform work for SkyLink. Id. Many of those emails were later traced to an IP address for Defendant's home. On several occasions, Defendant sent emails from his own email addresses that were purporting to be from fictitious persons at Federal Legal Associates or the Straile Group. Id.

The emails often purported to contain invoices for work alleged to have been performed for SkyLink. Id. Templates for those invoices were later discovered on Defendant's SkyLink computer. Id. Payments from SkyLink to these fake firms were later traced to bank accounts created by Mrs. Miller. Id. SkyLink ultimately paid out $368,350 to these fake entities before it discovered the expenditures and fired Defendant on May 6,2014. Id.

Shortly before he became SkyLink's General Counsel, Defendant founded the Community College Consortium on Autism and Intellectual Disabilities (“CCCAID”). Id. at 307. For several years, Defendant worked to solicit funding from colleges, Congress, and private individuals. Id. All told, CCCAID raised over $783,000. Id. Mrs. Miller was also involved in CCCAID and, eventually, Defendant suggested hiring Mrs. Miller as an unpaid executive director. Id. Although initially rejected by other cofounders, Mrs. Miller was eventually hired. Id. Once Mrs. Miller obtained control of CCCAID's bank account, she immediately began spending funds for the Millers' personal expenses. Id. Ultimately, nearly 80% of CCCAID assets - $619,025 - was spent directly on personal expenses for the Millers or transferred to bank accounts that they controlled (including the bank accounts for Defendant's bogus law firms). Id.

Around the same time, Defendant was working to have Mrs. Miller selected as treasurer for Virginia State Senator Richard Saslaw's reelection campaign (the “Saslaw Campaign”). Once she was selected for that volunteer position and obtained access to the campaign checkbook, Mrs. Miller used the campaign checkbook to pay out over $633,000 into the same bank accounts controlled by the Millers. Id. When Senator Saslaw discovered the discrepancies, he terminated Mrs. Miller on September 5,2014.

After the fact, government witnesses traced how money siphoned from SkyLink, CCCAID, and the Saslaw Campaign was transferred and spent. Id. This included how the money was generally transferred into accounts that the Millers controlled, often by shuffling the funds between accounts, before ultimately being used to pay the Millers' personal expenses. Id. Of note, when SkyLink fired Defendant, the balance in the Millers' joint bank account was $462.56 and, despite neither of the Millers holding a paying job, the joint account paid out over $165,000 to cover various personal expenses. Id.

Importantly, Defendant has acknowledged that he created the fake Federal Legal Associates and the Straile Group entities and asserted that “the ends justified the means.” Id. at 308. Defendant has also admitted he had hatched a “deliberate” and “unethical” “scheme to deceive SkyLink.” Id. He also admitted that he knew that the fraudulently obtained funds would “eventually” be transferred to the Millers' joint bank account so that he and Mrs. Miller could spend them. Id.

II. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

The government initiated two criminal proceedings based on the above-mentioned facts: a criminal case against Mrs. Miller in 2015 and then a criminal case against Defendant in 2017. The procedural backgrounds of both proceedings are relevant here.

A. The Proceedings Against Mrs. Miller

On October 15, 2015, Mrs. Miller pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud against SkyLink, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1349. See United States v. Linda Diane Wallis, No. 15-CR-285, Dkt. No. 7 at 1 (Plea Agreement). In her signed Statement of Facts, Mrs. Miller identified her coconspirator as “D.M.” United States v. Linda Diane Wallis, No. 15-CR-285, Dkt. No. 8 at 2 (Statement of Facts). Mrs. Miller also admitted to engaging in a scheme to defraud the Saslaw Campaign and CCCAID. Id. at 4-6.

On March 18, 2016, currently inactive Senior District Judge T.S. Ellis, III sentenced Mrs. Miller to a prison term of 56 months to be followed by a three-year term of supervised release and ordered restitution of $1,429,599. United States v. Linda Diane Wallis, No. 15-CR-285, Dkt. No. 30 at 2 (Judgment in a Criminal Case). Judge Ellis also issued a Consent Order of Forfeiture containing a money judgment of $1,429,599 against Mrs. Miller. United States v. Linda Diane Wallis, No. 15-CR-285, Dkt. No. 29 at 2 (Consent Order of Forfeiture). Pursuant to that Order, Mrs. Miller forfeited her interest in properties located at 4551 Forest Drive, Fairfax, Virginia (the “Fairfax Property”) and at 2896 Indian Harbor Drive, Unit 3, Bethany Beach, Delaware (the “Bethany Beach Property”). Id. The Order further authorized the Attorney General, or a designee, to seize and otherwise maintain custody and control of the forfeited properties. Id.

On April 18, 2016, Defendant filed a petition for interest in the forfeited property in Mrs. Miller's case, seeking an ancillary hearing and an amended order to recognize his interest in the Fairfax and Bethany Beach Properties. United States v. Linda Diane Wallis, No. 15-CR-285, Dkt. No. 36 at 2. Defendant argued that he was the sole and current owner of both properties, and that Mrs. Miller did not have an interest in the properties to forfeit. Id. After many agreed-upon continuances by the parties, Judge Ellis held several hearings on forfeiture and directed the parties to submit several rounds of supplemental briefing. Supplemental briefing on the issue of forfeiture was completed on July 14, 2017, but, on September 20, 2017, a federal grand jury returned an indictment against Defendant and the issue was unresolved pending resolution of the criminal proceedings against Defendant.^[4]

B. The Proceedings Against Defendant

On September 20, 2017, a grand jury issued an indictment charging Defendant with: (i) conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud (Count 1); (ii) conspiracy to launder monetary instruments (Count 2); (iii) mail fraud (Counts 3-6); (iv) wire fraud (Counts 7-10); and (v) aggravated identity theft (Counts 11-12). Dkt. No. 1 at 1 (Indictment). The Indictment also contained a forfeiture notice as to the net proceeds derived from the sale of the Fairfax Property and Bethany Beach Property. Id. at 37.

On September 29, 2017, Defendant appeared before Judge Ellis for his arraignment. Dkt. 15. At the arraignment, the parties agreed that the case was complex and that trial should be set for February 20,2018. Id. Thereafter, Defendant signed a speedy trial waiver, and an Order issued designating the case complex, such that a trial date beyond the ordinary speedy trial timeframe was appropriate. Dkt Nos. 18; 21. The parties later jointly agreed to continue trial until May 1, 2018. Dkt. Nos. 29; 30.

On January 3, 2018, Defendant filed a Motion for a Bill of Particulars challenging the government's basis for charging Defendant with a conspiracy with respect to the Saslaw Campaign or CCCAID funds. Dkt. 25. Simultaneously, Defendant also filed a Motion for Release of Seized and Retained Assets. Dkt. 26. In that Motion, Defendant argued that the funds related to the Fairfax and Bethany Beach properties were necessary to his legal defense and household expenses. Dkt. No. 26 at 1. After a hearing and supplemental briefing, Judge Ellis denied the Motion for Release of Assets in a Memorandum Opinion and Order. Dkt. Nos. 44; 45. In his Opinion, Judge Ellis held that there was probable cause to believe that the properties were “traceable” to the fraudulent schemes, such that the properties were “tainted” and not substitute assets. Id. at 26. Accordingly, Judge Ellis held that the properties could be restrained prior to tried. Id.

Defendant then...