United States of America v. Jonathan Lee Oliver

Missoula, Montana criminal defense lawyer represented Defendant charged with fraud.



Using multiple aliases and businesses, Oliver defrauded

dozens of victims of over $7 million. In 2014, Oliver

pleaded guilty to federal charges of wire fraud, money

laundering, and structuring. Oliver was sentenced to prison

for 100 months followed by 36 months of supervised release.

He was also ordered to pay over $5 million in restitution to

his victims.



After serving his sentence, Oliver began his three-year

term of supervised release in October 2020. As a condition

of his supervised release, Oliver had to provide his federal

probation officer with any requested financial information

and notify the officer of any material changes in his

economic circumstances. He was also ordered not to incur

any new lines of credit without the prior approval of his

probation officer. The probation officer directed Oliver to

submit a monthly financial report detailing his income,

expenses, and net worth. But for the first five months of his

supervision, Oliver provided no such report.



In March 2021, Oliver finally turned in a monthly

supervision report. The form on which Oliver submitted the

report warned him that "[a]ny false statements may result in

revocation of probation, supervised release, or parole, in

addition to 5 years imprisonment, a $250,000 fine, or both.

Per 18 U.S.C. § 1001.” Oliver signed the report and certified

that all the information furnished was complete and correct.

After reviewing the report, Oliver's probation officer

determined that it was missing some financial information

and supporting documents. When confronted, Oliver

acknowledged that he omitted some supporting

documentation and facts from the report. The probation

officer then petitioned the district court to revoke Oliver's

supervised release for failing to provide accurate financial

information and traveling outside the state without

permission.



The probation officer didn't stop there. He spoke with

"Rose” Ozlem Ture, Oliver's supervisor, and learned that

Oliver traveled outside the state on other occasions without

permission, collected payments in cash and personal checks,

once carried about $7,000 in cash, and used an unauthorized

PayPal account. Soon after, the probation officer discovered

materials in Oliver's possession showing that he was

operating four companies without permission.



Nor did the officer stop there. He uncovered that Oliver

used another man, Kirkland Conner, to start multiple

companies, open bank accounts, sell items, and deposit

checks. Oliver ran the businesses while informing Conner

of only some of the financial arrangements. According to

Conner, Oliver admitted that he could not start these

companies by himself because of his legal troubles and

federal supervision. Based on this investigation, the

probation officer found that Oliver did not disclose multiple

sources of income that could have been used to pay

restitution. Specifically, the probation officer found that

Oliver received over $30,000 in income, but paid only $600

in restitution.



A few weeks later, the probation officer filed an

amended petition for revocation of supervised release. This

time the probation officer alleged that Oliver committed a

new crime—violating 18 U.S.C. § 1001. The petition

specified that Oliver submitted the March 2021 monthly

supervision report with false statements about his vehicles,

bank accounts, storage units, and net earnings.

In May 2021, the district court held a revocation hearing.

Oliver contested the violations, but the district court found

him in violation of § 1001 for making false statements in the

monthly report as well as of other supervision conditions.

The district court revoked Oliver's supervised release and

sentenced him to 24 months of imprisonment, followed by

another 32 months of supervised release.



Oliver now appeals. First, he argues that the district

court improperly revoked his supervised release based on the

§ 1001 violation since he was entitled to the judicial

proceeding exception to that statute. Second, Oliver

contends that his constitutional rights were violated by the

district court's finding that he committed a crime by a

preponderance of the evidence. We review Oliver's

questions of statutory interpretation and constitutional rights

de novo. United States v. Vilchez, 967 F.2d 1351, 1353 (9th

Cir. 1992).

Affirmed.