On appeal, Walters argues that the indictment in this case should be dismissed because of what he terms ʺextraordinary government misconductʺ ‐‐ a special agent of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (the ʺFBIʺ) leaked confidential grand jury information about the investigation to reporters from The Wall Street Journal (the ʺJournalʺ) and The New York Times (the ʺTimesʺ), in violation of the grand jury secrecy provision of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e) and the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.  Walters also challenges his conviction on the grounds that (1) the prosecution suborned perjury at trial and (2) there was insufficient evidence to support the counts of conviction related to Darden.  Finally, Walters contends that the district court erred in ordering restitution and forfeiture.  

was highly improper . . .  The leaking of confidential grand jury information to members of the press, whether to satisfy public interest in high profile criminal prosecutions or to generate evidentiary leads, is serious misconduct and, indeed, likely criminal.  

FBI Special Agent Chaves had provided information about the investigation to as many as four reporters from the Times and the Journal.  

[A]lthough the misconduct at issue is deeply disturbing and perhaps even criminal, it simply is not commensurate with the conduct in those cases where indictments were dismissed for coercion or violations of bodily integrity.  See United States v. Bout, 731 F.3d 233, 239 (2d Cir. 2013) (affirming denial of motion to dismiss indictment on due process grounds and explaining that defendant ʺhas not alleged anything akin to ʹeither coercion or a violation of [his] personʹʺ (quoting Al Kassar, 660 F.3d at 121)).  The Court certainly does not condone the conduct, but we are hard‐pressed to conclude that the leaking by a government official of confidential information to the press ʺshocks the conscience.ʺ  While there may be circumstances where strategic leaks of grand jury evidence by law enforcement rises to the level of outrageous conduct sufficient to warrant dismissal, those circumstances are not present here.    

In any event, Waltersʹs constitutional claim fails because he has not demonstrated prejudice in this case. . .

Wells Fargo says a computer glitch is partly to blame for an error affecting an estimated 500 customers who lost their homes. The giant bank filed papers with the Securities and Exchange Commission last month, revealing it incorrectly denied 870 loan modification requests. About 60 percent of those homeowners went into foreclosure. 

. . .

Wells Fargo said it plans to work with each of those customers to reach a resolution. The bank is also offering no-cost mediation. Meanwhile, non-profit groups and some legislators are pushing for more answers.

2. The Defendants Wey and NYG have terminated our representation and with to proceed pro se.  This plus other professional consideration, including financial issues (the details for which are confidential), require that Catafago Fini LLP be permitted to withdraw as counsel. 

To execute the scheme, Sapp stole the identity of the president of the construction company. Sapp, using a cloud-based platform called DocuSign, executed false contracts between Novus and the construction company, using the same IP address within minutes of each other to affix both his own digital signature as seller for Novus and the digital signature of the victim construction company president as buyer. Sapp would send the purchase contracts to victims, along with falsified HUD-1 Settlement Statement summaries, as evidence that he had purchased the properties and already contracted to re-sell them. Altogether, Sapp executed hundreds of false real estate transactions to induce victims to part with money. In truth, Sapp did not close on deals and used victim money to buy a Mercedes, take golf vacations, and to make lulling payments to investors. Sapp targeted close friends and their family who trusted him.

recorded all of the distributions as dividends, despite completing quarterly tax accrual worksheets demonstrating that certain AMAs lacked current or accumulated tax basis earnings and profits from which to pay dividends in certain periods. Approximately $22.3 million (62.3%) of the funds received should not have been recorded as dividends and were actually a return of capital. Additionally, to maintain its status as a Regulated Investment Company for federal income tax purposes, and to avoid paying an excise tax on undistributed income, KCAP distributed approximately 98% of its investment income, including income from AMAs, to its shareholders through quarterly distribution payments. By failing to record the distributions it received from the AMAs in conformity with GAAP, a significant portion of the quarterly distributions KCAP paid to its shareholders were a return of capital and not dividends. The quarterly distribution payments were not accompanied by a contemporaneous written statement disclosing the source of the funds distributed as required by Rule 19a-1 under the Investment Company Act of 1940.

[D]ean accepted payment from customers via wire money transfers or online credit card payments. In reality, the property advertised as the Finger Lakes Guesthouse (FLGH) property was under significant construction, and was not available for rent. A second property, advertised as the Watkins Glen Guesthouse (WGGH), was actually owned by another individual who never gave the defendant permission to rent the property or advertise it for rent.

Dean promised to maintain deposits received from customers in an escrow account, which did not exist. Because of the status of the properties, the defendant later cancelled the reservations for many of the customers and refused to refund payment. Other customers became aware, in advance of their scheduled vacations, that the properties advertised by Dean were not accurately described, and they attempted to cancel their reservations. The defendant however refused to refund their money as well. 

The financial losses to the more than 20 victims totaled approximately $137,272.46.