addressed Bruno’s dealings with Jared E. Abbruzzese, “were all part of thesame alleged ‘scheme’ to defraud.” (Dkt. No. 373 at 3.) Each count,however, relied on separate mailings, none of which were repeated in anyother count.
Dkt. No. 1 ¶ 66.)After a lengthy deliberation, the jury returned a split verdict on theAbruzzese counts; it found Bruno guilty on Counts Four and Eight, butacquitted him on Counts Five and Six.
, 661 F.3d at 736. Brunowas sentenced on May 6, 2010, and thereafter, appealed “‘each and everypart’ of his conviction.” (Dkt. No. 363, Attach. 11 at 2.) While his appealwas pending, the United States Supreme Court issued its decision in
Skilling v. United States
, 130 S. Ct. 2896 (2010), which essentiallydecriminalized the conduct underlying Bruno’s counts of conviction.
at 2933. Accordingly, the government conceded that the convictionshad to be vacated.
, 661 F.3d at 736.On November 16, 2011, the Second Circuit, guided by thegovernment’s stated intention of pursuing a superseding indictment,
For example, Count Four was based on eleven different mailingsbetween March and November 2004. (
Dkt. No. 1 ¶ 66.) None ofthose eleven are repeated in Counts Five, Six or Eight, despite thecommonality in the scheme and actors. (
Case 1:09-cr-00029-GLS Document 375 Filed 12/11/12 Page 3 of 27