United States v. Nicholas Lucidonio

United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · May 16, 2025 · No. 24-1285

Summary

This Third Circuit opinion addresses a criminal defendant's appeal of a sentencing enhancement applied under U.S.S.G. § 2T1.9(b)(2) for a Klein conspiracy involving payroll tax fraud at a restaurant chain. The court holds that the enhancement's requirement of conduct intended to encourage does not mandate explicit direction to violate tax laws, as administering a fraudulent cash-payroll scheme inherently encourages such violations. However, the court vacates and remands for resentencing because the government failed to meet its burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the participating employees were not co-conspirators in the charged offense.

Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Writing for the Court
Montgomery-Reeves; Restrepo; Ambro
Jurisdiction
United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Decision date
May 16, 2025
Docket number
24-1285
Procedural posture
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (D.C. Criminal No. 2:20-cr-00211-002) challenging the application of a sentencing enhancement under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines §2T1.9(b)(2).
Standard of review
Mixed question of law and fact; de novo for legal issues and clear error for factual findings.
Precedential value
published
Parties
United States v. Nicholas Lucidonio
Disposition
vacated

Topics

taxcriminal proceduresentencingappellate procedurestandard of review

Practice areas

criminal proceduretax

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the phrase “conduct was intended to encourage” in U.S. Sentencing Guidelines §2T1.9(b)(2) requires explicit direction of another to violate the tax laws.
  2. Whether the government proved by a preponderance of the evidence that Lucidonio encouraged persons other than co‑conspirators to violate the Internal Revenue Code or impede revenue collection.

Holdings

  1. The phrase does not require explicit direction; conduct that encourages others can be satisfied by the scheme itself.
  2. The government failed to prove by a preponderance that Lucidonio encouraged persons other than co‑conspirators; therefore the enhancement does not apply.

Key quotations

the scheme depends on it, as honest treatment of tax obligations would rapidly expose the fraud. (at 151)

Factual background

Nicholas Lucidonio, owner of a Philadelphia cheesesteak restaurant, operated a payroll scheme that paid employees part of their wages in cash off the books, issued false W‑2s, and filed fraudulent employer tax returns, thereby evading payroll taxes for over ten years.

Procedural history

Lucidonio pleaded guilty to a single count of Klein conspiracy (18 U.S.C. §371). The district court sentenced him to 20 months and applied a two‑level enhancement under §2T1.9(b)(2). Lucidonio appealed, arguing the enhancement was improper.

Remand instructions

Resentence without applying the §2T1.9(b)(2) enhancement.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…