United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Dallas Division
BRADLEY C. STARK, Petitioner,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent.
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
D. STICKNEY, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
cause of action was referred to the United States Magistrate
Judge pursuant to the provisions of Title 28, United States
Code, Section 636(b), as implemented by an order of the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
Texas. The Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation of the
United States Magistrate Judge follow:
filed this petition to vacate, set-aside, or correct sentence
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. He challenges his
conviction for seven counts of wire fraud and one count of
securities fraud. The district court sentenced him to 276
months in prison. On September 24, 2014, the Fifth Circuit
affirmed and denied Petitioner's motion for rehearing.
United States v. Stark, 582 Fed.Appx. 462
(5th Cir. 2014).
January 20, 2016, Petitioner filed the instant § 2255
petition. He argues:
1. He received ineffective assistance of appellate counsel;
2. The trial court erred when it admitted certain recorded
phone calls into evidence;
3. The trial court erred when it failed to dismiss the
wire-fraud convictions under the Double Jeopardy Clause;
4. The trial court erred in denying Petitioner's motion
5. The trial court committed sentencing errors;
6. The trial court's errors forced Petitioner to take the
stand in his own defense;
7. The judgment and restitution order contains clerical
errors and constitutes an unlawful delegation of Article III
April 11, 2016, Respondent filed its answer. On May 12,,
2016, Petitioner filed a reply. The Court now finds the
petition should be denied.
following factual background is taken from the PSR.
2000, Petitioner incorporated Sardaukar Holdings
(“Sardaukar”) as an International Business
Corporation in the British Virgin Islands. Petitioner created
Sardaukar to invest and manage financial assets of clients.
Between October 14, 2004, and July 3, 2005, Petitioner
operated Sardaukar out of his residence in Riverside,
California. Petitioner was the sole active officer of the
company and directed all affairs of the company.
March 2004 and July 2005, Petitioner and others began
soliciting investors to invest in Sardaukar. While soliciting
potential investors, Petitioner created brochures and
pamphlets which contained materially false and fraudulent
information to entice potential investors to send money to
Sardaukar for investment. Besides mailing out brochures and
pamphlets, Petitioner also solicited investors in person, on
the telephone, and held investment seminars in hotels.
March 2004, during one of Petitioner's hotel seminars, he
met unindicted coconspirator James Rumpf. While speaking with
Rumpf, Petitioner learned that Rumpf intended to solicit
others to invest in Sardaukar using the representations
Petitioner had made to him. Based on Petitioner's
misrepresentations, Rumpf agreed to invest funds with him in
exchange for monthly fee payments equal to a percentage of