based on uncharged conduct — specifically, state tax losses. Pursuant to section 1B1.3(a)(2) of the Guidelines, “relevant conduct” includes any acts or omissions that were “part of the same course of conduct or common scheme or plan as the offense of conviction.” The Guidelines define “common scheme or plan” as two or more offenses that are “substantially connected to each other by at least one common factor, such as ... common accomplices, common purpose, or similar modus operandi.” U.S.S.G. § IB 1.3, cmt. n. 9(a). After review, we conclude that the fraudulent submissions to both the state and federal governments, which occurred in the exact same manner by the same perpetrators, were part of a “common scheme or plan.” See United States v. Fitzgerald, 232 F.3d 315, 318 (2d Cir.2000) (<HOLDING>). Fourth, White contends that she was denied a
holding crimefraud exception applied to testimony of attorney and accountant who prepared his clients tax returns during grand jury investigation for tax evasion holding that franchisees tax evasion scheme provided cause for termination holding that state and city tax evasion considered relevant conduct under conviction for federal tax evasion holding that failure to make any tax payment despite having resources sufficient to pay all or a substantial portion of tax liability constitutes evasion holding in tax case that the sophisticated means enhancement applied even when each step in the planned tax evasion was simple because when viewed together the steps comprised a plan more complex than merely filling out a false tax return