Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
John Anthony Castro operated Castro and Company LLC, which offered tax-planning and tax-preparation services. Although Castro was an IRS-enrolled agent and had earned law degrees, he was not licensed by any state bar. The government alleged that he used false Schedule C and Schedule A deductions to secure inflated refunds for clients, often taking roughly half of the expected refund as his fee. After a five-day bench trial, Castro was convicted on 33 counts of aiding and assisting in preparing and presenting false and fraudulent tax returns under 26 U.S.C. § 7206(2).
The district court calculated a Guidelines range that included enhancements for Castro’s leadership role and obstruction of justice and sentenced him to 188 months in prison, followed by one year of supervised release. Castro appealed his convictions and the two enhancements, challenged the denial of postjudgment motions concerning a new trial and the trial transcripts, and separately appealed the denial of bail pending appeal.
The Court’s Holding
On panel rehearing, the Fifth Circuit withdrew its July 10, 2026 opinion and substituted this opinion; it denied rehearing en banc. The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to review the denial of Castro’s postjudgment motion to correct the trial transcripts because he did not file a separate notice of appeal identifying that later order. It did have jurisdiction to review the new-trial ruling because the government forfeited its nonjurisdictional timeliness objection, but it rejected Castro’s Brady claim. His asserted impeachment evidence was known at trial, cumulative, or supported only by a conclusory allegation, and the district court did not abuse its discretion by deciding the motion without an evidentiary hearing.
The court also held that Castro validly waived his Confrontation Clause rights through factual stipulations that he approved in writing and that counsel used as part of a legitimate strategy focused on willfulness. It upheld the four-level leadership enhancement because the record supported treating the operation as otherwise extensive and supported finding that Castro led at least one criminally responsible participant. It upheld the obstruction enhancement because Castro’s lawsuits and communications plausibly constituted attempts to threaten, intimidate, or unlawfully influence witnesses or investigators. The court therefore affirmed in all other respects in No. 24-11000 and dismissed No. 26-10428 as moot because it had already denied the requested bail.
Key Takeaways
- A notice of appeal generally does not permit review of a later postjudgment order unless the appellant separately notices that order.
- Criminal appellate timing rules are nonjurisdictional claim-processing rules, and the government may forfeit a timeliness objection by failing to raise it in the district court.
- An operation may qualify as “otherwise extensive” under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(a) based partly on the services of unknowing participants, while the defendant must still have organized or led at least one criminally responsible participant.
Why It Matters
The opinion clarifies the interaction among post-trial motions, notices of appeal, and appellate jurisdiction in criminal cases. It also illustrates that counsel may waive confrontation rights through strategically chosen stipulations when the defendant does not dissent—and especially where the record shows the defendant expressly agreed.
For sentencing, the decision confirms that courts may consider both knowing and unknowing contributors when deciding whether criminal activity was otherwise extensive. It also shows that litigation and related communications intended to pressure investigators or deter witnesses can support an obstruction-of-justice enhancement.