United States v. Santonastaso

100 F.4th 62

UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Antonio SANTONASTASO, Defendant, Appellant.

No. 22-1944

United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit

April 26, 2024

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS [Hon. Timothy S. Hillman, U.S. District Judge]

Jin-Ho King, with whom Milligan Rona Duran & King LLC was on brief, for appellant.

Mark T. Quinlivan, Assistant United States Attorney, with whom Joshua S. Levy, Acting United States Attorney, was on brief, for appellee.

Before Montecalvo, Thompson, and Rikelman, Circuit Judges.

MONTECALVO, Circuit Judge.

Defendant-appellant Antonio Santonastaso appeals the judgment following a jury verdict finding him guilty of making a false statement to federal investigators and attempted witness tampering. Santonastaso contends that the government's evidence was insufficient to prove his guilt on these charges and that the district court erred by declining to give a materiality instruction based on the Supreme Court's decision in Maslenjak v. United States, 582 U.S. 335, 137 S.Ct. 1918, 198 L.Ed.2d 460 (2017). For the reasons explained below, we affirm Santonastaso's convictions.

I. Background

A. The 2000 Helicopter Theft and Revocation of Santonastaso's Airman Certificate

In the summer of 2000, Santonastaso was investigated by the Federal Aviation Administration ("FAA") for allegedly stealing a helicopter and flying the helicopter without appropriate certifications. The FAA revoked Santonastaso's airman certificate after finding, in relevant part, that he: (1) lacked a valid medical certificate while flying the helicopter; (2) failed to obtain the necessary rotorcraft-helicopter rating on his airman certificate before flying the helicopter; (3) operated the helicopter carelessly or recklessly by carrying a passenger when he lacked proper certifications; and (4) failed to notify the FAA of his address change.

As Santonastaso emphasizes on appeal, the FAA did not list his alleged involvement in the helicopter theft as a reason for revoking his airman certificate. But in 2002, Santonastaso pled guilty in Massachusetts state court to stealing the helicopter.

B. The FAA's 2018 Investigation

Nearly two decades later, in 2018, Santonastaso's neighbor reported to local police that he saw Santonastaso flying a helicopter from his backyard around the area. The police alerted the FAA, and the FAA assigned Aidan Seltsam-Wilps, an aviation safety inspector, to investigate Santonastaso. At Seltsam-Wilps's instruction, Santonastaso's neighbor provided the FAA with written logs of when he saw Santonastaso flying and photographs of Santonastaso in the helicopter.

After obtaining the logs and photographs from Santonastaso's neighbor, Seltsam-Wilps checked FAA records to assess what certifications Santonastaso possessed and whether the helicopter he was flying was airworthy (i.e., compliant with federal regulations and safe to fly). Seltsam-Wilps's research revealed that Santonastaso previously held an airman certificate, but the FAA revoked his certificate, meaning that Santonastaso did not have privileges to fly the helicopter. And by searching for the helicopter's tail number to obtain its registration information, Seltsam-Wilps found that the helicopter appeared airworthy.

Based on this preliminary investigation, Seltsam-Wilps sent Santonastaso a letter requesting that he provide records to confirm the helicopter's airworthiness. Seltsam-Wilps found Santonastaso's responses to be inadequate and arranged to visit Santonastaso to see the helicopter in person.

On April 18, 2018, Seltsam-Wilps -- accompanied by an FAA maintenance inspector and a local police officer -- met Santonastaso at his home. At first, Santonastaso denied illegally flying the helicopter. But after Seltsam-Wilps told him that the FAA had photographic evidence of him flying, Santonastaso changed course to assert that he had the requisite certifications to fly. Similarly, when Seltsam-Wilps summarized the FAA records showing that his airman certificate had been revoked, Santonastaso "seemed very confused," but then told Seltsam-Wilps that he had a valid license to fly. Santonastaso presented Seltsam-Wilps with a logbook containing an expired temporary airman certificate issued in 1985 and expired logbook endorsements (statements issued by certified flight instructors permitting students with specific training to conduct certain types of flight operations) showing that he had completed the training requirements for the Robinson R22 helicopter he had been flying. Santonastaso also showed Seltsam-Wilps what he purported to be a medical certification but was actually an inapplicable physician's checklist.

When Seltsam-Wilps inquired about Santonastaso's awareness that his airman certificate had been revoked, Santonastaso initially stated that he never received notice from the FAA about the revocation. But he later told Seltsam-Wilps that the notice must have been sent to him "when [he] was out of the country working for the State Department." Seltsam-Wilps asked Santonastaso about this supposed State Department work, to which Santonastaso responded that he had been "part of a team of operatives, and it's black ops sort of stuff," involving members of the CIA and DEA. Santonastaso further explained that the "whole story about the stolen helicopter and [his] jail time . . . was all a cover-up; and once he spoke with the remaining members of his team of operatives, he would be able to clear [the] matter up," as it was "all a big misunderstanding."

At the end of this meeting, Seltsam-Wilps instructed Santonastaso to stop flying the helicopter, citing the serious consequences that could result if the FAA found that he had violated federal regulations. Later that day, Santonastaso called Seltsam-Wilps to reiterate that he had an airman certificate and medical certification, and "indicated that he had no intention of [refraining from] flying the helicopter."

True to his word, Santonastaso continued flying, and the FAA received documentation from his neighbor of approximately 85 flights that he piloted in the helicopter between April and November 2018. But in November 2018, the Town of East Brookfield sued Santonastaso in Massachusetts state court and eventually obtained a permanent injunction barring him from flying the helicopter.

C. The U.S. Department of Transportation's 2019 Investigation

While the FAA's investigation of Santonastaso was administrative in nature, the Office of the Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Transportation ("DOT-OIG") later opened a criminal investigation into Santonastaso's conduct. In the spring of 2019, the DOT-OIG received a complaint from the U.S. Attorney's Office regarding Santonastaso's alleged operation of a helicopter without an airman certificate. DOT-OIG Special Agent Marybeth Roberts obtained a copy of the FAA's investigation file and started the DOT-OIG's criminal investigation into Santonastaso's conduct.

On April 17, 2019, Roberts and another DOT-OIG special agent met with Santonastaso at his home. As part of her introduction, Roberts identified herself as a federal law enforcement officer, informed Santonastaso of his right to not speak with her, and explained that lying to a federal law enforcement officer is a criminal offense. Roberts also gave Santonastaso her business card, which listed her position as a DOT-OIG special agent.

Like Seltsam-Wilps, Roberts questioned Santonastaso about the revocation of his airman certificate. Santonastaso told Roberts that he found out about the revocation during his 2018 meeting with Seltsam-Wilps and that the revocation was related to a stolen helicopter. Roberts then showed Santonastaso a copy of the revocation notice that was sent to him in 2000, and Santonastaso confirmed that the mailing address was where he lived at the time. Unlike in his interview with Seltsam-Wilps, Santonastaso did not mention working for the State Department, CIA, DEA, or any undercover operation. Santonastaso also clarified to Roberts that he was not currently flying because his helicopter needed maintenance. And when Roberts asked for his flight logbook, he told Roberts that he kept the logbook in Woodstock, Connecticut.

On May 6, 2019, Roberts and DOT-OIG Special Agent Dwight Schwader went to Woodstock to meet Roland Toutant, the manager of Toutant Airport, and learned that Toutant was friends with Santonastaso. Based on information from Toutant, Roberts and Schwader proceeded to interview Ronald Plouffe, the manager of a nearby airport in Southbridge, Massachusetts. While being interviewed by Roberts and Schwader, Plouffe received a call from Santonastaso. Plouffe clandestinely signaled to the agents that Santonastaso was on the line, and Schwader leaned in closely to the phone receiver to take notes on the call. Santonastaso told Plouffe that a woman was "asking questions" about him at "other airports" because "his neighbor was mad" about him flying his helicopter. Of particular relevance here, Schwader's notes from the call indicated that Santonastaso referred to the woman as "a girl from MA DOT," presumably shorthand for the Massachusetts Department of Transportation. During the call, Santonastaso instructed Plouffe to say that he did not know Santonastaso or anything else in response to the woman's questions. Santonastaso also referenced the permanent injunction that prohibited him from flying and the potential consequences of doing so.

D. The Federal Criminal Proceedings Against Santonastaso

On May 30, 2019, a federal grand jury indicted Santonastaso on four counts:

• Count 1: Serving as an airman without an airman certificate when flying the helicopter in 2018 in violation of 49 U.S.C. § 46306(b)(7);

• Count 2: Making false statements to federal investigators by denying culpability in the 2000 helicopter theft during the FAA's 2018 investigation in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a)(2);

• Count 3: Making false statements

...