Justia U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Jones owned SAM Packaging and owed several hundred thousand dollars in back taxes for 2006-2008. Jones refused to provide the IRS with bank statements, and later submitted statements, with blacked-out parts. He submitted financial disclosure forms, disclosing accounts at Mutual of Omaha Bank (MO), but not accounts at Community Credit Union. He directed his financial activity to the undisclosed accounts. When the IRS levied on Jones’s MO accounts, they were nearly empty. Jones commingled personal and business accounts, then began dealing in cash. He refused to turn over accounts receivable, stating that he would terminate the business before doing so. In 2010, he declared that SAM had been “suspended” and he was unemployed. He had started a new company to secretly serve his customers. The IRS summonsed customers and learned Jones had performed work without billing them, preventing levy on his accounts receivable. Jones pled guilty to tax evasion, 26 U.S.C. 7201. The district court imposed a two-level enhancement for use of sophisticated means, as recommended in the PSR. After a three-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility, the district court calculated a Guidelines range of 30 to 37 months and sentenced Jones to 24 months. The Eighth Circuit affirmed, rejecting an argument that Jones’s actions were typical of tax evasion offenses and did not make detection more difficult. View "United States v. Jones" on Justia Law

For about three years ending in 2009, five schemers bilked unsuspecting investors of an estimated $190 million in a Minnesota Ponzi scheme. They took more than $79 million of the investors’ funds with the help of Associated Bank. After the scheme was exposed, the district judge in a related case appointed a receiver to take custody of funds owned by the schemers’ estates and by organizations under their control (receiver entities). The receiver filed suit on behalf of the receiver entities, alleging Associated Bank aided and abetted the scheme. The district court granted Associated Bank’s motion to dismiss. The Eighth Circuit reversed and remanded, stating that, while it could not predict whether a jury will find Associated Bank either had actual knowledge of or substantially assisted in the asserted torts, the facts alleged in the complaint give the receiver’s claims “facial plausibility.” The receiver pled “factual content that allows the court [and a jury] to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” View "Zayed v. Associated Bank, N.A." on Justia Law

Adejumo pled guilty to bank fraud and aggravated identity theft and was sentenced to 124 months in prison. Adejumo did not waive his ability to present argument on the amount of the loss to the victims. A year later, the government moved to amend the judgment to add a restitution obligation of $1.1 million. In support, it provided a single page exhibit containing the names of four asserted victim banks and amounts owed to each. Although Adejumo's trial counsel received electronic court filing (ECF) notice of this motion, he did not respond nor inform Adejumo of it. Trial counsel had withdrawn as appellate counsel. Substitute counsel had been appointed, but the ECF system still showed trial counsel as counsel of record. The district court entered the requested restitution order. Two months later it denied Adejumo's motion to reopen or for reconsideration. The Eighth Circuit reversed, finding that the district court lacked sufficient information to set restitution. View "United States v. Adejumo" on Justia Law

Markert, President of Pinehurst Bank, approved nominee loans to friends and family of bank customer Wintz. The loan proceeds were used to cover Wintz’s $1.9 million overdraft at the Bank. A jury convicted Markert of willful misapplication of bank funds by a bank officer, 18 U.S.C. 656. At sentencing, applying U.S.S.G. 2B1.1(b)(1), the district court found that Markert’s offense caused an actual loss equal to the amount of the loans, resulting in a 16-level enhancement and a guidelines range of 87 to 108 months in prison. The court sentenced Markert to 42 months. The Eighth Circuit remanded for resentencing. After considering arguments, but without an evidentiary hearing, the court reduced its prior finding by $60,000, to reflect repayments prior to detection and re-imposed the same 42-month term. The Eighth Circuit again remanded, holding that the government failed to sustain its burden to prove actual loss. While “the loss here cannot be zero,” the court declined to give the government a third chance to present evidence and ordered that, on remand, actual loss for sentencing purposes is zero, reducing the guidelines range to 12-18 months. Markert has already served more than 18 months; the court directed that he be immediately released. View "United States v. Markert" on Justia Law

Defendants Martinus and Maurice appealed their sentences after pleading guilty to conspiracy to commit wire fraud. The court concluded that Martinus's eighty-five month sentence was substantively reasonable where the district court considered the appropriate factors in varying from the guidelines and adequately explained its sentence. Because the district court would have sentenced Maurice to the same sentence even without the government's breach of the plea agreement, the court could not say that the breach of the plea agreement required reversal under the plain error standard; the district court sufficiently explained the defendant-specific facts relevant to sentencing Maurice and the district court did not plainly err in sentencing Maurice to the same term of imprisonment as Martinus; and Maurice's sentence was substantively reasonable. View "United States v. Sayles" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud and conspiracy to commit tax fraud. On appeal, the government challenged defendant's sentence as substantively unreasonable and defendant cross-appealed, challenging her convictions. The court concluded that there was sufficient evidence to prove that defendant knowingly and intentionally joined in an agreement to defraud Best Buy; the evidence was sufficient to prove that defendant willfully committed affirmative acts constituting tax evasion and that a tax deficiency resulted; the evidence was sufficient to sustain defendant's tax fraud conspiracy since the evidence showed that she knowingly and intentionally entered an agreement with her husband to evade taxes and that she took an overt act in furtherance of the agreement; the evidence at trial was not "materially different" from the facts in the indictment and, therefore, no variance occurred and the district court did not err in denying her motion for acquittal on that basis; the district court did not abuse its discretion in rejecting defendant's claim that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence; and the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant a new trial based on admission of Government Exhibit 17. Accordingly, the court affirmed defendants convictions. In regards to defendant's sentence, the court remanded for the district court to provide a fuller explanation of the sentence. View "United States v. Cole" on Justia Law

Defendants appealed their convictions for 44 counts of fraudulent behavior relating to theft of government funds, filing of their personal taxes, and actions they took as paid tax preparers. The court concluded that there was sufficient evidence to support the convictions; the district court did not plainly err by joining defendants for trial; the district court did not err in excluding expert witnesses for the defense; taken as a whole, the district court's instructions "fairly and adequately" submitted the issue of good faith to the jury and it was not error to reject defendants' proffered good faith instruction; and the district court did not err in calculating restitution. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Morris" on Justia Law

Defendant Calhoun appealed her conviction of two counts of conspiracy to commit access device fraud and aggravated identity theft and making false statements to investigators. Calhoun's convictions stemmed from her purchase of several "black market" airline tickets from Defendant Ross. Ross appealed his sentence after pleading guilty to conspiracy to commit access device fraud and aggravated identity theft, access device fraud, and aggravated identity fraud. The court concluded that there was sufficient evidence to convict Calhoun; the district court committed no prejudicial abuse of discretion in not sua sponte excluding an inspector's testimony; and the court rejected Calhoun's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. The court also concluded that the district court's finding that the fraud loss exceeded $1,000,000 was not clearly erroneous; the district court did not err in imposing a 6-level enhancement for a fraud offense involving more than 250 or more victims under U.S.S.G. 2B1.1(b)(2)(C); and the district court did not err in imposing a 2-level enhancement for a fraud offense involving sophisticated means under U.S.S.G. 2B1.1(b)(10)(C). Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Calhoun" on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to one count of securities fraud in violation of 15 U.S.C. 78j(b), 78ff and 17 C.F.R. 240.10b-5 (Rule 10b-5). On appeal, defendant challenged his sentence of five years' imprisonment, arguing that because he had no knowledge that his conduct violated Rule 10b-5, imprisonment was not a permissible sentencing option. However, defendant had admitted to knowing the substance of Rule 10b-5, and this removed him from the protection of the no-knowledge provision. Because defendant failed to carry his burden of showing that he had no knowledge of Rule 10b-5, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Behren" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his sentence after pleading guilty to wire fraud and aggravated identity theft. The court rejected defendant's contention that the district court impermissibly considered factors unrelated to his assistance to law enforcement and that the district court improperly refused to consider some of his assistance to law enforcement. Therefore, the court affirmed the sentence, holding that the district court did not commit plain error when it determined the extent of the downward departure under U.S.S.G. 5K1.1.