USA v. Alfredo Sararo, III

Filing

Opinion issued by court as to Appellant Alfredo J. Sararo, III. Decision: Affirmed. Opinion type: Non-Published. Opinion method: Per Curiam.

Case: 13-10267

Date Filed: 09/23/2014

Page: 1 of 3

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 13-10267
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 2:11-cr-00080-JES-SPC-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
ALFREDO J. SARARO, III,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
________________________
(September 23, 2014)
Before HULL, MARCUS and HILL, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Alfredo J. Sararo, III appeals his convictions on five counts of wire fraud, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1343 and 2, and four counts of filing a false tax return, in

Case: 13-10267

Date Filed: 09/23/2014

Page: 2 of 3

violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7206(1). Sararo was charged with making wire
communications to execute a fraudulent real estate investment scheme and
misrepresenting the income he derived from the fraud on his tax returns. After a
15-day trial, a jury found Sararo guilty on five out of seven counts of wire fraud
and all four counts of tax fraud. The district court sentenced Sararo to 108 months’
imprisonment for the wire fraud counts and 36 months’ imprisonment for the tax
fraud counts, to be served concurrently. 1
On appeal, Sararo raises five challenges to his convictions. First, Sararo
argues that the prosecutor engaged in misconduct by (1) knowingly presenting
perjured testimony, (2) commenting on Sararo’s right not to testify, and
(3) attempting to shift the burden of proof onto Sararo. Second, Sararo argues that
the district court erred in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal due to
insufficient evidence that the alleged wire communications were part of the fraud
or of an effort to lull his victims into a false sense of security. Third, Sararo argues
that the district court abused its discretion in excluding, as self-serving hearsay,
Sararo’s recorded statements to his tax preparer showing that he lacked the
requisite intent to commit tax fraud. Fourth, Sararo argues that the district court
abused its discretion in denying his motion for new trial based on a juror’s failure

1

Sararo does not appeal his sentences.
2

Case: 13-10267

Date Filed: 09/23/2014

Page: 3 of 3

to disclose her prior employment in the real estate industry during voir dire. Fifth,
Sararo argues that cumulative error deprived him of a fair trial.
After review and oral argument, we conclude that all of Sararo’s arguments
lack merit, and thus affirm Sararo’s convictions.
AFFIRMED.

3