Case Explained: United States of America Plaintiff— v. Eric Reed Marascio Defendant—

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Filed: 2026-07-17

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the convictions of Eric Reed Marascio for conspiracy to commit wire fraud and conspiracy to commit money laundering related to a Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) scheme involving $3.5 million in fraudulent loans. The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury’s verdict, applying a de novo standard of review with substantial deference to the jury’s findings. The court determined that circumstantial evidence, including Marascio’s participation in a pay-to-play model, the submission of false payroll data for his business, the investment of loan proceeds for personal gain, and testimony from co-conspirators regarding the scheme’s intent to defraud, provided ample support for a finding of specific intent to commit fraud. Regarding the prosecutor’s closing argument referencing the guilty pleas of co-conspirators, the court applied the four-factor test from *United States v. Roland* to assess the propriety of the statement. The court found that three factors favored the Government: the district court provided a limiting instruction clarifying that guilty pleas were not evidence of guilt, the pleas were introduced for the proper evidentiary purpose of refuting the defense’s theory that only one conspirator knew the scheme was illegal, and the mention was minimal. Even assuming the argument was improper, the court concluded it did not constitute plain error or an abuse of discretion because the statement did not substantially impair Marascio’s rights given the strength of the independent evidence supporting his conviction. Consequently, Marascio’s convictions remain in effect, and he faces the sentencing imposed by the district court.

Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.