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

Defendant pleaded guilty to money laundering and conspiring to commit honest-services mail fraud. Defendant's conviction stemmed from his participation in defrauding his employer, Best Buy, by assisting one of Best Buy's vendors. On appeal, defendant challenged his sentence, contending that the district court erred by denying him an acceptance of responsibility reduction under U.S.S.G. 3E1.1 and by sentencing him above the 60-month maximum for the conspiracy offense. The district court found that defendant's repeated false statements at a crucial point in the case were "all direct repudiations of his own guilt." Therefore, the court held that the perjured testimony went to the heart of the acceptance of responsibility, and the district court did not clearly err in finding that defendant did not "clearly demonstrate" his willingness to take responsibility for his criminal conduct. The court agreed that the 90-month sentence for conspiracy exceeded the statutory maximum but concluded that the error did not affect defendant's substantial rights. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.

Defendant pleaded guilty to two counts of price fixing and one count of bid rigging in violation of 15 U.S.C. 1. Defendant subsequently appealed his sentence, contending that the district court abused its discretion by not accepting the binding plea agreement. Defendant also contended that the sentence of 48 months, as well as the amount of the fine, was substantively unreasonable. The court found no basis for concluding the final sentence was substantively unreasonable. The district court considered appropriate factors in varying from the guidelines and adequately explained its sentence. Similarly, the district court considered appropriate factors in selecting the fine amount, and adequately explained its chosen amount. Therefore, the court found no basis for concluding the amount of the fine was substantively unreasonable.

Defendant pled guilty to one count of structuring financial transactions and was sentenced to thirty months in prison. On appeal, defendant challenged the procedural and substantive reasonableness of his sentence. The court held that the district court did not commit any procedural error in sentencing defendant and that court adequately explained the sentence it imposed and its reasons for denying both a downward departure and a variance. The court also held that defendant's sentence was substantively reasonable where the district court sentenced him at the bottom of the Guidelines range, after taking into account various factors such as his military service, health, age, and role in the crime. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.

Defendant was convicted of bank fraud, his sentence was subsequently reduced, he was placed on supervised release, and his supervised release was revoked twice. Defendant appealed the second revocation of his supervised release and appealed the district court's post revocation sentence, which included a special condition of supervised release requiring him to reside in a residential reentry center for a third time upon his release. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in revoking defendant's supervised release where he admitted to violating ten conditions of supervised release. The court also held that the district court did not plainly err when it ordered defendant to reside in a residential reentry center where that court followed the procedures set forth in 18 U.S.C. 3583. Accordingly, the judgment was affirmed.

Defendant pleaded guilty to aiding and abetting a scheme to defraud Wal-Mart of more than $675,00 by the use of fictitious money transfers. Defendant was ordered to pay restitution to Wal-Mart, but just before her sentencing, defendant transferred a substantial portion of her cash assets to her boyfriend. Defendant subsequently violated a condition of supervised released by failing to make two scheduled restitution payments. Defendant's supervised release was revoked and she was sentenced to one year and one day in prison. The court affirmed and held that defendant willfully failed to make sufficient bona fide efforts legally to acquire the resources to pay her restitution obligation. Accordingly, the judgment was affirmed.

Defendant was convicted of crimes related to his involvement in a multi-billion dollar Ponzi scheme and was sentenced to 50 years imprisonment and 3 years of supervised release. Defendant appealed, challenging his conviction and sentence. The court held that defendant's Sixth Amendment rights were not violated when the district court sealed a cooperating witness's United States Marshals Service's Witness Security Program (WITSEC) file, limited defendant's ability to reference the witness by name at a pretrial hearing, prevented defendant from introducing the file into evidence, and prohibited the use of the WITSEC file to impeach the witness. The court also held that the district court properly denied defendant's proffered jury instructions. The court further held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's motion to change venue. The court rejected defendant's argument that the district court committed procedural error in sentencing. Accordingly, the court affirmed defendant's conviction and sentence.

Defendant was convicted of conspiracy to commit bank fraud, bank bribery, making false statements to a financial institution, and wire fraud and was sentenced to 78 months' imprisonment. Defendant appealed from his convictions and sentence. The court held that the district court adequately considered defendant's right to be represented by the counsel of his choice against the court's interest in the orderly administration of justice and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a continuance for defendant to retain new counsel. In light of United States v. Hildebrand, the court could not say that the district court plainly erred in considering the statements defendant made at allocution. Accordingly, the convictions and sentence were affirmed.

Plaintiffs brought this action against several defendants alleging violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 28 U.S.C. 1961 et seq., and raising several state law causes of action. The district court granted defendants' motion to dismiss the RICO claim and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims. The district court denied plaintiffs' subsequent motions to reconsider and to amend their complaint. Plaintiffs appealed. The court agreed with the district court that plaintiffs failed to plead the RICO elements of an enterprise, a pattern of racketeering activity, and at least two predicate acts committed by each defendant. The court found no error in the district court's denial of the motion to amend and could not say that the district court abused its discretion in dismissing the state law claims.

Defendant was found guilty of two federal offenses: one count of aiding and abetting a violation of the so-called Medicare anti-kickback statute, in violation of 42 U.S.C. 1320a-7b(b)(2) and 18 U.S.C. 2, and one count of aiding and abetting the falsification of a document, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1519 and 2. Defendant raised several claims on appeal. The court held that the district court did not err in admitting testimony concerning statements made by defendant's wife during her interview with the FBI; in admitting evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) that defendant stole funds from previous employers in the healthcare industry; in denying defendant's motion to dismiss count one of the second superseding indictment, which charged a violation of the anti-kickback statute; by refusing to hold an evidentiary hearing on defendant's motion to suppress statements and to declare his proffer agreement unenforceable; and by granting in part the spouse's attorneys' motion to quash a subpoena requiring one of the representatives to produce his entire file regarding the representation of the spouse who was now deceased. The court also held that the district court's jury instructions regarding count one were not erroneous. The court held, however, that the district court erred in calculating the amount of loss under Guidelines 2B4.1 when it used the loss to the victims, rather than the benefit to defendant, as the measure of loss. Therefore, the court concluded that there was procedural error and defendant's sentence was vacated. The court finally vacated the restitution order and remanded for further proceedings. The court rejected defendant's remaining claims.

Defendant, manager of a kosher meatpacking company, was convicted of 86 counts of bank, wire, and mail fraud; making false statements to a bank; money laundering; and violations of an order of the Secretary of Agriculture. Defendant appealed his convictions and sentence. The court held that there was no evidence in the record that the district court's decision to remain on the case prejudiced defendant's verdict and concluded that the district court did not err by denying defendant's motion for a new trial. The court also held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in trying the financial charges first where the district court's order was a practical solution given the nature and number of the charges. The court further held that, with the exception of one count of false statements to a bank which was premised solely on violations of immigration law, any error on this evidence would have been harmless because it would have had no effect on the verdict. Therefore, the district court did not abuse its wide discretion in excluding evidence. The court finally held that, because defendant's offense was falsely stating that the company was in compliance with its laws, the court did not commit plain error with its instruction on harboring illegal aliens; defendant's money laundering convictions were lawful and did not merge with any other of his crimes; there was no error in the district court's loss calculation; and the district court did not abuse its considerable discretion in imposing a 324 month sentence. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court.