NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ________________
No. 16-4339 ________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
WILLIAM JOSEPH BOYLE, Appellant
________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (D.C. Criminal No. 2-16-cr-00271-001) District Judge: Honorable Harvey Bartle, III ________________
Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a) February 8, 2018
Before: CHAGARES, SCIRICA, and RENDELL, Circuit Judges
(Filed: February 13, 2018)
OPINION* ________________
* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. SCIRICA, Circuit Judge
William Boyle pleaded guilty to counts of mail fraud, wire fraud, securities fraud,
and investment adviser fraud. He appeals his 78-month sentence, challenging the trial
court’s application of a two-level sentencing enhancement for an offense involving “a
misrepresentation or other fraudulent action during the course of a bankruptcy
proceeding.” U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(9)(B). We will affirm.
I.
A.
William Boyle is a former stock broker and investment adviser who founded his
own company, Life Financial Planning, in 2008. Boyle was the sole owner of Life
Financial Planning, offering stock broker, investment adviser, and financial planning
services to clients. On March 10, 2009, Boyle was permanently barred by the Financial
Industry Regulatory Authority from acting as a stock broker or otherwise associating in
any capacity with a firm that sold securities to the public because of his misappropriation
of over $500,000 in client funds. Despite this bar, Boyle continued to hold himself out to
existing and prospective clients as an investment adviser or stock broker.
Between February of 2009 and December of 2015, Boyle defrauded multiple
clients––many of whom were elderly and unsophisticated investors––out of more than
$400,000. Rather than invest client money as promised, he took it for his own personal
use, including paying for his children’s school tuition and purchasing a bar in
Philadelphia which he renamed, “The Boyler Room.”
Federal agents first interviewed Boyle on April 29, 2015. On May 5, 2015, the
2 United States Attorney’s Office served Boyle with a target letter, informing him that he
was the subject of a grand jury investigation.
B.
On December 15, 2015, Boyle filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy on behalf of his
bar, “The Boyler Room, Ltd.” As part of the proceedings, Boyle filed a form listing all
debts owed to unsecured creditors. On this form, Boyle falsely characterized debts owed
to two former clients in the amount of $180,000 and $35,000 as “loans.” In reality, these
were not loans but money Boyle stole from these clients.
In addition to this misrepresentation, testimony and exhibits presented to the trial
court at sentencing showed Boyle made other misrepresentations to the bankruptcy court.
For the $180,000 loan entry, Boyle listed the wrong name of his client’s trust fund. For
the $35,000 entry, Boyle listed an incorrect address. Moreover, because Boyle filed the
bankruptcy case on behalf of his bar, “The Boyler Room,” notices sent to debtors
contained the bar’s name, not Boyle’s. As a result, when two of Boyle’s clients received
notice from the bankruptcy court of the meeting of creditors, see 11 U.S.C. § 341, they
did not understand the notice (they did not know Boyle owed the bar) and did not attend
the meeting.
C.
On June 30, 2016, a grand jury indicted Boyle, charging him with five counts of
mail fraud, 18 U.S.C. § 1341; three counts of wire fraud, 18 U.S.C. § 1343; one count of
securities fraud, 15 U.S.C. §§ 78j(b) and 78ff; and one count of investment adviser fraud,
15 U.S.C. §§ 80b–6 and 80b–17. He pleaded guilty to all counts on August 30, 2017.
3 At sentencing, the trial court applied several enhancements under the sentencing
guidelines, including the only enhancement challenged on appeal: a two-level
enhancement for an offense involving “a misrepresentation or other fraudulent action
during the course of a bankruptcy proceeding.” U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(9)(B).
II.*
Boyle contends the trial court erred in applying this enhancement because: (1) he
was not charged with bankruptcy fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 157; (2) the mail, securities,
and investment advisor fraud he was charged with occurred prior to the bankruptcy case
and not “during the course of a bankruptcy proceeding”; (3) there was no financial loss
attributable to his actions in the bankruptcy case; and (4) he complied with bankruptcy
law by disclosing all debts, see 11 U.S.C. § 521(a)(1)(A), he did not intend to defraud or
misrepresent the bankruptcy court, and he did not benefit from the bankruptcy. These
arguments lack merit. The trial judge properly interpreted the guideline and did not
commit clear error when he concluded Boyle made a misrepresentation during the
bankruptcy proceeding.
First, Boyle cites no authority for the proposition that § 2B1.1(b)(9)(B) applies
only to those charged with bankruptcy fraud. The plain text of the guideline supports the
opposite conclusion: the enhancement applies “[i]f the offense involved . . . a
misrepresentation or other fraudulent action during the course of a bankruptcy
* The trial court had jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 3231. We have jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 3742 and 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review a trial court’s “interpretation of the Sentencing Guidelines de novo and its application of the guidelines to the facts for clear error.” United States v. Woronowicz, 744 F.3d 848, 850 (3d Cir. 2014). 4 proceeding.” U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(9)(B) (emphasis added). The phrase “the offense
involved” indicates the enhancement is not limited to a single charge, let alone
bankruptcy fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 157. Indeed, the offense of bankruptcy fraud would
always involve a fraudulent action “during the course of a bankruptcy proceeding.” See
id. Accordingly, the enhancement would be nonsensical if it only applied to bankruptcy
fraud. See United States v. Simpson, 796 F.3d 548
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ________________
No. 16-4339 ________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
WILLIAM JOSEPH BOYLE, Appellant
________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (D.C. Criminal No. 2-16-cr-00271-001) District Judge: Honorable Harvey Bartle, III ________________
Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a) February 8, 2018
Before: CHAGARES, SCIRICA, and RENDELL, Circuit Judges
(Filed: February 13, 2018)
OPINION* ________________
* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. SCIRICA, Circuit Judge
William Boyle pleaded guilty to counts of mail fraud, wire fraud, securities fraud,
and investment adviser fraud. He appeals his 78-month sentence, challenging the trial
court’s application of a two-level sentencing enhancement for an offense involving “a
misrepresentation or other fraudulent action during the course of a bankruptcy
proceeding.” U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(9)(B). We will affirm.
I.
A.
William Boyle is a former stock broker and investment adviser who founded his
own company, Life Financial Planning, in 2008. Boyle was the sole owner of Life
Financial Planning, offering stock broker, investment adviser, and financial planning
services to clients. On March 10, 2009, Boyle was permanently barred by the Financial
Industry Regulatory Authority from acting as a stock broker or otherwise associating in
any capacity with a firm that sold securities to the public because of his misappropriation
of over $500,000 in client funds. Despite this bar, Boyle continued to hold himself out to
existing and prospective clients as an investment adviser or stock broker.
Between February of 2009 and December of 2015, Boyle defrauded multiple
clients––many of whom were elderly and unsophisticated investors––out of more than
$400,000. Rather than invest client money as promised, he took it for his own personal
use, including paying for his children’s school tuition and purchasing a bar in
Philadelphia which he renamed, “The Boyler Room.”
Federal agents first interviewed Boyle on April 29, 2015. On May 5, 2015, the
2 United States Attorney’s Office served Boyle with a target letter, informing him that he
was the subject of a grand jury investigation.
B.
On December 15, 2015, Boyle filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy on behalf of his
bar, “The Boyler Room, Ltd.” As part of the proceedings, Boyle filed a form listing all
debts owed to unsecured creditors. On this form, Boyle falsely characterized debts owed
to two former clients in the amount of $180,000 and $35,000 as “loans.” In reality, these
were not loans but money Boyle stole from these clients.
In addition to this misrepresentation, testimony and exhibits presented to the trial
court at sentencing showed Boyle made other misrepresentations to the bankruptcy court.
For the $180,000 loan entry, Boyle listed the wrong name of his client’s trust fund. For
the $35,000 entry, Boyle listed an incorrect address. Moreover, because Boyle filed the
bankruptcy case on behalf of his bar, “The Boyler Room,” notices sent to debtors
contained the bar’s name, not Boyle’s. As a result, when two of Boyle’s clients received
notice from the bankruptcy court of the meeting of creditors, see 11 U.S.C. § 341, they
did not understand the notice (they did not know Boyle owed the bar) and did not attend
the meeting.
C.
On June 30, 2016, a grand jury indicted Boyle, charging him with five counts of
mail fraud, 18 U.S.C. § 1341; three counts of wire fraud, 18 U.S.C. § 1343; one count of
securities fraud, 15 U.S.C. §§ 78j(b) and 78ff; and one count of investment adviser fraud,
15 U.S.C. §§ 80b–6 and 80b–17. He pleaded guilty to all counts on August 30, 2017.
3 At sentencing, the trial court applied several enhancements under the sentencing
guidelines, including the only enhancement challenged on appeal: a two-level
enhancement for an offense involving “a misrepresentation or other fraudulent action
during the course of a bankruptcy proceeding.” U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(9)(B).
II.*
Boyle contends the trial court erred in applying this enhancement because: (1) he
was not charged with bankruptcy fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 157; (2) the mail, securities,
and investment advisor fraud he was charged with occurred prior to the bankruptcy case
and not “during the course of a bankruptcy proceeding”; (3) there was no financial loss
attributable to his actions in the bankruptcy case; and (4) he complied with bankruptcy
law by disclosing all debts, see 11 U.S.C. § 521(a)(1)(A), he did not intend to defraud or
misrepresent the bankruptcy court, and he did not benefit from the bankruptcy. These
arguments lack merit. The trial judge properly interpreted the guideline and did not
commit clear error when he concluded Boyle made a misrepresentation during the
bankruptcy proceeding.
First, Boyle cites no authority for the proposition that § 2B1.1(b)(9)(B) applies
only to those charged with bankruptcy fraud. The plain text of the guideline supports the
opposite conclusion: the enhancement applies “[i]f the offense involved . . . a
misrepresentation or other fraudulent action during the course of a bankruptcy
* The trial court had jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 3231. We have jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 3742 and 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review a trial court’s “interpretation of the Sentencing Guidelines de novo and its application of the guidelines to the facts for clear error.” United States v. Woronowicz, 744 F.3d 848, 850 (3d Cir. 2014). 4 proceeding.” U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(9)(B) (emphasis added). The phrase “the offense
involved” indicates the enhancement is not limited to a single charge, let alone
bankruptcy fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 157. Indeed, the offense of bankruptcy fraud would
always involve a fraudulent action “during the course of a bankruptcy proceeding.” See
id. Accordingly, the enhancement would be nonsensical if it only applied to bankruptcy
fraud. See United States v. Simpson, 796 F.3d 548, 551, 555–56 (5th Cir. 2015)
(affirming imposition of the same enhancement where defendant was not charged with
bankruptcy fraud).
Second, and as an initial matter, Boyle incorrectly asserts that he filed for
bankruptcy after the charged conduct. The indictment, however, alleged a scheme to
defraud “[b]eginning in or about February 2009 and continuing until or about December
2015.” App. Vol. II, at 4. Boyle filed for bankruptcy on December 15, 2015.
In any event, the filing of the bankruptcy petition after the fraud scheme ended
would not have precluded the trial court from imposing the enhancement. In applying the
sentencing guidelines, the trial court is to consider the defendant’s relative culpability
based on all relevant conduct, i.e., conduct defined in § 1B1.3 “and not simply on the
basis of the elements and acts referenced in the count of conviction.” United States v.
Isaza-Zapata, 148 F.3d 236, 239 (3d Cir. 1998). Conduct that occurs “in the course of
attempting to avoid detection or responsibility for that offense” is relevant conduct to be
considered when applying the sentencing guidelines. U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3(a). Therefore, the
timing of the bankruptcy petition is immaterial in this case––the record demonstrates
Boyle’s misrepresentations to the bankruptcy court were an attempt to evade detection of
5 his fraudulent scheme. See United States v. Tanke, 743 F.3d 1296, 1306–07 (9th Cir.
2014) (applying the enhancement where bankruptcy proceeding occurred four years after
completion of fraud scheme); see id. at 1307 (“[Defendant’s] false testimony in the
bankruptcy proceeding may not have occurred in preparation for or during the
commission of the offense, but it plainly occurred ‘in the course of attempting to avoid
detection or responsibility for that offense.’” (quoting U.S.S.G. 1B1.3(a)(1)).
Third, it is immaterial whether there was a financial loss attributable to Boyle’s
actions as a result of the bankruptcy case. The financial loss attributable to Boyle is
assessed under a different guideline. See U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(1); see also U.S.S.G.
§ 2B1.1 cmt. n.3 (providing extensive discussion of loss calculation). The text of
§ 2B1.1(b)(9)(B), in contrast, does not contain a financial loss requirement, and Boyle
cites no authority to the contrary.
Fourth, Boyle’s assertion that he was complying with the bankruptcy law
requirement to disclose all debts is demonstrably false. As explained above, he
misrepresented two of his debt entries as “loans” from his clients, when, in fact, he had
stolen money from his clients. In addition, Boyle failed to disclose to the bankruptcy
court debts owed to his other victims. Boyle claims he did not intend to defraud the
bankruptcy court or misrepresent his obligations. But the trial court found that he did,
and, based on the record, this conclusion was far from clear error. Finally, Boyle’s
assertion that he did not benefit from the bankruptcy proceeding is irrelevant, as that is
not a requirement of § 2B1.1(b)(9)(B).
6 III.
For the foregoing reasons, we will affirm the judgment of conviction and sentence.