Landau also criticized the trial court for constructively amending the indictment to include omissions as a basis for conviction without establishing a duty to disclose. She further argued that the court erred in calculating Barama’s sentence based on gains instead of losses, claiming the gains were inflated.
Government’s Response
Lloyd A. Farnham, arguing for the government, contended that the relationship between Barama and Nellore met the standard for a personal connection. He highlighted hundreds of texts and phone calls between the two, many on nights and weekends, discussing trading strategies.
“Nellore did testify ‘we were not friends,’ but … they spoke frequently — hundreds of times by phone and texts,” Farnham said. “That’s a close personal relationship.”
Farnham also emphasized that Nellore shared confidential information in violation of corporate obligations and was misled by Barama about the volume of trades being conducted. He defended the trial court’s reliance on gains to calculate the sentence, arguing that losses were harder to quantify.
Judicial Skepticism of the Appeal
During the hearing, U.S. Circuit Judge Milan Dale Smith expressed skepticism about Barama’s argument that he had no personal relationship with Nellore.
