Published on:

by

Rodriguez challenged her guilty plea to conspiracy to commit the federal crimes of mail fraud and wire fraud arguing that her plea was not knowing or voluntary. She also claimed her plea should not have been accepted by the district judge because she told the district judge she suffered from a mental illness. She also challenged the sentence imposed. The court of appeals found no error. Rodriguez pleaded guilty for her participation in a mortgage fraud scheme involving fraudulent loan applications submitted to lenders across the country to obtain loans and properties in Miami-Dade County and in Broward County. The scheme used straw buyers who had no intention of residing in the purchase properties. The loan applications contained false employment verifications, false paystubs, and false deposit verifications. The guideline range came to 78 to 97 months, but the district court gave her a sentence below the guideline range to prevent disparity with co-conspirators.

Because Rodriguez’s guilty plea challenge was raised for the first time on appeal, the court of appeals reviewed for plain error. During the plea she indicated that she had undergone treatment for mental than illness for the year following her arrest and was under the care of a psychologist. The court of appeals found that she had a full opportunity to do to consult with her Attorney during the guilty plea hearing. There was no evidence indicating an inability to consult with her attorney or to understand his advice to her. Similarly, there was no evidence to indicate she was not competent to enter the plea. The court found that the colloquy satisfied the provisions of rule 11.

The court of appeals rejected the defendant’s plea challenge on the grounds that there was and in sufficient factual basis to accept her plea. The court determined that Rodriguez confirmed at the plea hearing that she committed the offense, and it found a sufficient factual basis for the plea.

Continue reading
Published on:

by

Isaacson appealed his conviction following a jury trial for conspiracy to commit wire fraud and mail fraud and securities fraud. The conspiracy defrauded investors through a hedge fund that placed money in shell companies with no assets or business operations. The hedge fund drove up the prices of the shell companies causing them to appear more valuable than they really were. From his Florida office, the defendant assisted in creating fraudulent valuation reports in an effort to placate auditors.

In his appeal, the defendant challenged the district court’s failure to grant his speedy trial motion. The court of appeals upheld the district court’s decision because it found the defendant filed his motion after the trial began. The defendant’s speedy trial motion was filed on April 19, 2010. Prior to that the trial court began ruling on jury challenges based on the written responses to juror questionnaires sent to perspective jurors. The court of appeals concluded that the voir dire had begun when the trial court began making its rulings.

The court also upheld the district court’s denial of the defendant’s statute of limitations challenge based on his claim that the government failed to prove an overt acts occurred within the period of the statute of limitations. The one overt act that took place within the statute of limitation period was done by the codefendant. The defendant argued that the overt act does not mention the defendant and cannot be used to bootstrap the defendant’s conduct within the statute of limitations. Rejecting this argument, the court of appeals found an individual conspirator need not participate in the overt act done in furtherance of the conspiracy for the overt act to fall within the statute of limitations.

Continue reading
Published on:

by

The defendants in U.S. v. Chahla were three brothers from Syria who were convicted following a jury trial of various federal crimes in connection with their fraudulent marriages and their subsequent attempt to procure citizenship. The three brothers, all of whom resided in Florida, paid three women for a marriage. After their respective marriages, the brothers filed an I-130 petition to sponsor the defendants in their request for lawful permanent resident status (“green card”.) At the same time the brothers filed their own form I-485 application to adjust their status based on marriage to a U.S. citizen. After they were interviewed by immigration officials, the defendants received lawful permanent resident status. Two of brothers up applied for citizenship while the third just applied for his lawful permanent residency. An investigation into their marriage led to these charges.

The defense were indicted and convicted of conspiracy to commit marriage fraud and six counts of unlawful procurement of naturalization pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1425. For two of the defendants, the unlawful procurement of naturalization charges was based on false statements made in the application to become a lawful permanent resident and false statements made in the naturalization application. For a third brother the unlawful procurement charges were only based on his original lawful permanent resident application. Two defendants challenged their conviction under 18 USC § 1425 for unlawful procurement of naturalization and citizenship because the counts relied on false statements made in support of the lawful permanent resident application. The defense argued that the conviction should be reversed because § 1425 criminalizes fraudulent procurement of naturalization, but not false statements made in the application to adjust to permanent residents. The court rejected this argument. It found that becoming a lawful permanent resident was a statutory a prerequisite to becoming a naturalized citizen. The defendants’ attempt to become a naturalized citizen was contrary to law to the extent it was based on fraudulently obtained status as a lawful permanent resident. The defendants filed naturalization applications and a reasonable jury could conclude that the defense intended to seek naturalization when they file their fraudulent lawful permanent resident applications.

A third brother was convicted of making a false statement in the naturalization application. The naturalization form asked if the defendant had ever given false or misleading information to any U.S. government official while applying for any immigration benefits. There was overwhelming evidence that the defendant’s marriage was fraudulent, and the answers to these questions provided evidence for the court to conclude sufficient evidence existed to convict this count.

Continue reading
Published on:

by

Defendants Esquenazi and Rodriguez were convicted in Miami federal court of conspiracy to violate the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) and conspiracy to commit wire fraud and money laundering. The FCPA makes it a crime to bribe the foreign official for the purpose of influencing the official. A foreign official is defined as an officer or employee of a foreign government or of any department, agency, or instrumentality thereof. The chief issue in the appeal in U.S. v. Esquenazi, was the definition of an instrumentality of a foreign government.

The defendants ran a telecommunications company that purchased phone time from foreign vendors and resold the minutes to customers in the United States. One of their main vendors was a telecommunications company in Haiti. The defendants worked out a deal with the phone company that reduced the defendants’ phone bill debt and in exchange the defendants agreed to funnel 50% of the savings to the principle under the guise of a consulting agreement. The government presented evidence that Haiti owned the phone company and that the phone company was an instrumentality of the government of Haiti. The issue to the court of appeals said to resolve was whether the district court’s definition of the instrumentality as it was used in the jury instructions was correct. Furthermore it had to define instrumentality in resolving the sufficiency of the evidence issue and the defendants’ challenge to the constitutionality of the statute.

The court rejected the defendants’ argument that the definition had to be limited to entities that perform traditional core government functions. The court defined instrumentality as an entity controlled by a foreign country that performs a function that the controlling government treats as its own. To decide whether the government controls entity courts and juries should look to the following: the foreign government’s formal designation of that entity; whether the gov’t has a majority interest in the entity; the government’s ability to hire and fire the entities principles; the extent to which the entity’s profits go directly to the government; and the to the extent to which the government funds the entity if it fails to break even. The court found that the lower courts jury instruction included most of the relevant elements for determining an instrumentality of a foreign governments incorrectly stated the definition of an instrumentality.

Continue reading
Published on:

by

The defendant in U.S. v Harrell received a 25 year sentence after pleading guilty to conspiracy and the substantive robbery a Miami Walgreens and a McDonalds in violation of the Hobbs Act and two counts of possession of a firearm in relation to the robberies. He argued on appeal that the district judge participated in the plea negotiations in violation of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(c).

Here’s what happened in this Miami federal criminal case. On the day of trial, prior to bringing the jury venire into the courtroom, the district court stated that “it might be worth spending a few minutes in terms of the overall gravity of the situation to discuss whether or not there is some possibility of a plea or pleas of the two defendants.” The district court then engaged defense counsel for the codefendants, and the prosecutors “in a lengthy discussion regarding the likelihood of a plea from either or both of the defendants.” The discussion then turned to the possibility of a plea by the Defendant Harrell and his attorney mentioned he had been interested in the same plea certain codefendants received but that the government would not treat Mr. Harrell the same because he was facing state court charges involving murder and attempted murder pending. At one point the district court commented that Harrell was facing a “horrendous mandatory sentence that becomes somewhat irrevocable after a trial if there is a conviction.” After a recess, the government came back with an offer to an agreed upon 25 year sentence that Harrell rejected. The trial began with jury selection but after the lunch recess Harrell’s attorney announced that his client would accept the 25 year sentence. The codefendant, Dantzle, proceeded to trial and was convicted.

Because the issue was raised on appeal for the first time, the plain error standard applied. It required the defendant to show the error was plain, that the error affected his substantial rights, and the error seriously affected the fairness, integrity or public reputation of the judicial proceedings. The 11th Circuit found several violations of Rule 11(c)(1). First, the district court “instigated – without any mention of possible plea agreements from the parties” the plea-related discussions with counsel for both defendants and the government. Second, the district court improperly cautioned the defendants about the severity of his potential 32 year sentence should be convicted after trial and generally warned the defendant about the extremely high sentences they were facing should they be convicted and that the court would not have the same latitude to fashion a fair sentence if the defendants were found guilty by the jury. Third, the district court took the lead in orchestrating the plea agreement. While it found the district court had good intentions, the Rule 11 violation was plain error and reversible because comments by the district court, the defendant would reasonably have felt pressured to accept a plea rather than go to trial.

Continue reading
Published on:

by

In U.S. v. Massam, the defendant was convicted of theft and embezzlement of an employee benefit fund (E.R.I.S.A) he set of for himself and his employees and for which he served as the pension plan administrator. After divorcing his fifth wife, the state divorce court entered a distribution order to his ex-wife in the amount of $452,242. The defendant then attempted to illegally transfer of the funds in the pension plans to a foreign bank account so he could later withdraw the funds. His attempt to transfer the funds failed when the foreign bank refused to accept the wire and the funds were returned to the domestic bank. Following that failed attempt he appealed the state court judgment awarding his wife’s funds pension funds, and in filing the appeal he posted a supersedeas bond in an amount which covered the court ordered amount for the ex-wife. Subsequently, the divorce court order was affirmed and his obligation to pay her was met by the supersedeas bond. Following all that, the defendant was investigated for his theft of the pension plans and eventually indicted and he pleaded guilty to the federal crime of theft, embezzlement, and money laundering in connection with his attempted transfer of the employee benefit funds.

His presentence investigation report calculated is guideline range based on the intended loss of $1,185,863.00 which was the amount that he attempted to transfer to the foreign bank. The presentence report gave him some credit for the funds still remaining in the pension fund. The district court rejected his argument that he should receive credit and for the amount he paid out of the bond to satisfy his pension related obligations to in his ex-wife under the asset allocation order. Credit for this amount would have reduced his sentencing guideline range significantly but the district court refused to give them credit.

The 11th Circuit found that he should not be given credit for the bond posted to pay his ex-wife because in his case the sentencing guidelines required that the calculation be based upon the intended loss which was the amount the defendant attempted to transfer to the foreign bank. It rejected his argument that his guideline should be reduced by the amount his wife received from the bond posted after he appealed from the divorce order. While the guidelines provide that a loss they would be reduced by the money returned by the defendant, the credit-against-loss is not available where the guideline range is based upon intended loss alone. It is also not available here because there is no victim in the case of an intended loss. The 11th Circuit also rejected the defense argument that the wife became a victim because her property interests was imperiled by the attempted overseas transfer. The court found the overseas transfer attempt took place long before his wife was due to receive the funds, which she eventually received from the supersedeas bond.

Continue reading
Published on:

by

In U.S v. Tellis, the Defendant pleaded guilty to selling crack cocaine in October of 2001. The presentence investigation report designated him as a career offender giving him an offense level of 37 under the sentencing guidelines, but because of the amount quantity of crack cocaine his base offense level became 38 under the drug quantity table of the federal sentencing guidelines manual. The drug offense quantity level of 38 was higher than the career offender level so his career offender status did not impact his offense level. For that reason, his sentence was based on the drug quantity and not his status as a career offender. The federal judge in Florida reduced his offense level to 32 after giving reductions for acceptance of responsibility and substantial assistance and then sentenced him to 210 months. The sentencing was not transcribed because the court reporter’s notes were destroyed, but there was no dispute as to these reductions.

In 2007 the United States Sentencing Commission amended the guideline range providing for a two-level reduction in the based offense level for crack cocaine offenses. Known as amendment 706, it applied retroactively. As a result the defendant’s offense level was reduced from a level 38 to a level 36 for his offense. The defendant moved for a sentence reduction under the new calculation. This time however the starting point was offense level 37 and not at a level 36 because of his career offender status, giving him an offense level 31 after acceptance and substantial assistance reductions.

In November 2011 the sentencing commission again amended the guidelines for crack cocaine. This time the defendant’s based offense level fell to a level 34 instead of the original level 38. The defendant again moved to reduce his sentence, but this time probation office found he was not eligible for a sentence reduction because of his status as a career offender. The defendant argued in this appeal that he should be eligible for the reduction because the record was not clear that he was considered a career offender and the initial sentence. The court of appeals rejected his position because it found that the record was clear he did have a career offender status. And also found that when he received the reduction in 2008 the defendant had stipulated to a sentence modification that was calculated based of his career offender status.

Continue reading
Published on:

by

In Osley v. United States, the Eleventh Circuit rejected the defendant’s section 2255 claim that his counsel failed to advise him he faced a mandatory sentence, because he had turned down a plea offer prior to trial that would have given him only 70 months. Osley was convicted of multiple counts commercial sex trafficking of a minor by means of force fraud and coercion, including a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1591. Following the Miami federal criminal trial Osley was sentenced to 365 months and his sentence and conviction were affirmed. He filed a motion to vacate sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2255 claiming (1) his counsel was ineffective for failing to inform him of the mandatory minimum 15 year sentence for violating § 1591, (2) appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to challenge an obvious double counting violation of his sentencing guidelines, and (3) counsel failed to advise him he faced life term of supervised release.

Prior to trial his counsel discussed the possibility of a plea agreement. Both counsel and the prosecutor agreed that the guidelines calculation would be 97 to 121 months. At a status hearing held by the district court the prosecutor also informed the court there was no mandatory sentence under the sentencing guidelines and if found guilty he would be facing 97 to 121 months. The defendant had previously rejected a plea offer of 80 months. Osley chose a trial where the government’s star witness was a 17 year old victim was a run-away from home who said Osley promised to buy her ticket to Miami and discovered that she would have to become a prostitute for him, and described how he threatened her with a gun because she did not bring in enough money. After the trial and an during the Presentence Investigation interview, the probation officer informed the defendant and his counsel that the statute had been amended by Congress prior to the date Osley violated the statute, making the penalty a 15 year mandatory minimum sentence. The PSI also recommended a four level enhancement for uncharged conduct, giving him a range of 210 to 260 months. The judge also imposed a variance up by three levels.

While the Eleventh Circuit had serious doubts about whether counsel’s performance satisfied the standard of reasonableness required by the Sixth Amendment, it found that the defendant could not meet the prejudice pronged of Strickland. It rejected the Osley’s claim that he would have taken the 15 year mandatory sentence had he known he was facing 262 months under the guidelines, because Osley had rejected the government’s offer of 70 to 87 months. The 15 year deal that the defendant claims he would have taken was substantially more time than the deal he rejected. The court did not accept his claim that he would have taken 15 year deal even if he had known he would be facing a guideline range of up to 262 months. Furthermore, the defendant’s denial of guilt was a factor in determining whether he would have accepted the government’s plea offer.

Continue reading
Published on:

by

In U.S. v. Joseph, the defendant was convicted mail fraud and theft from the government for filing false income tax returns using false information. As a result of his committing this federal crime, the Internal Revenue Service actually disbursed $37,196. Before sentencing the government obtained an order from the district court entering a preliminary order of forfeiture under 18 U.S.C. § 3663A and 28 U.S.C. § 2461 for $29,514 in currency seized by government officials that were the proceeds of Joseph’s fraud. Joseph objected to the presentence investigation report because it recommended restitution in the amount of $37,196 to the IRS without reducing by the value of the funds forfeited to the government. At the sentencing, the government argued that the defendant was not entitled to an offset and the district court seemed to agree but announced that the restitution would be offset by the forfeiture amount. Following the sentencing, the government noticed the sentencing judge that the restitution and forfeiture laws do not permit the district judge to offset restitution by the amount forfeited. It argued the discretion whether to apply the forfeited funds to restitution belonged to the government. The sentencing court later entered a written order that required Joseph to pay $37,196 restitution to the IRS and directed the forfeiture of $29,514. There was no mention of an offset.

On appeal Joseph argued the district court had the authority to offset restitution by forfeiture, and argued that the sentencing court’s pronouncement at sentencing correctly intended to make the victim whole. The defendant relied on the rule that when an oral pronouncement of sentencing unambiguously conflicts with the judgment, the oral pronouncement controls. But the 11th circuit held that the rule does not apply here because the oral pronouncement was contrary to law. It found that under the language of the Mandatory Victim Restitution Act (MVRA) and the forfeiture act, the judge had no authority to offset the restitution amount by the forfeiture. The MVRA only permits a reduction for an amount later recovered for compensatory damages for the same loss by the victim in a civil proceeding.

In addition, the MVRA requires the court to order the forfeiture of property traceable to certain criminal offenses. The statute provides that the Attorney General has sole responsibility for disposing of petitions for remission or mitigation “or to transfer the property on such terms and conditions as he may determine, including as restoration to any victim of the offense giving rise to the forfeiture.” A defendant is not entitled to offset the amount of restitution owed to a victim by the value of the property forfeited to the government because restitution and forfeiture serve distinct purposes. Restitution is compensatory for the victim and forfeiture is punitive. The district court has no authority to offset a defendant’s restitution by the value of forfeited property except that the MVRA does allow for reduction of a restitution order for amounts “later recovered as compensatory damages for the same loss by the victim in” a federal or state civil proceeding. This only applies to compensatory damage awards recovered by a victim in a civil proceeding after the sentencing court enters a restitution order.

Published on:

by

After the defendant in U.S. v Ramirez-Florez pleaded guilty to reentry after deportation, he received a 16-level enhancement in his sentencing guidelines range because of a prior conviction for burglary of a dwelling in violation of the South Carolina conviction for burglary of a dwelling conviction that the district court determined was a crime of violence. The statute encompasses more than the generic definition of a burglary which is the unlawful entry into a residence. It also encompasses the unlawful entry into non-generic structures such as outhouses, sheds, or other buildings that are within two hundred yards of an appurtenant to a residence. Following the sentencing and after the briefs were filed on appeal, the Supreme Court decided Descamps v. U. S. and the defendant raised the argument for the first time at oral argument that the South Caroline statute is not divisible under Descamps and the district court erred in applying the modified categorical approach. In a divisible statute, where the statute sets out one or more elements of the offense in the alternative that in effect creates several different crimes, the courts must apply the modified categorical approach. If at least one of the alternative elements matches the generic definition, the court may consult a limited class of documents, such as the indictment and jury instructions to determine which element formed the basis of the defendant’s prior conviction.

Viewed the challenge to the defendant’s argument that the statute was divisible under the plain error because the argument was not raised before the district court or in the briefs on appeal. The defendant could not show that that the error was plain or obvious that the South Carolina statute is not divisible and found the issue is subject to interpretation.

In his second argument raised in the brief, he argued that his prior South Carolina conviction did not qualify as a crime of violence because the Shepard documents do not prove that he burglarized a generic dwelling. Because Ramirez-Flores could not show that the statute was indivisible, the court decided it was appropriate to consider Shepard documents. As the presentence investigation (psi) report presented evidence to the district court that the defendant’s prior burglary conviction involved the burglary of a residence. A court applying the modified categorical approach may consider undisputed facts in the psi which in this case said that the defendant forcibly entered the victim’s residence with a codefendant and removed property from the residence. Ramirez-Flores claims he objected at the sentencing hearing to these facts in the psi and therefore cannot rely on its description of his conduct. The court found that his objection was only a general objection to the factual and legal statements in the particular paragraph relating to the narrative of this prior conviction. The court held that vague assertions of inaccuracies are not sufficient to raise a factual dispute. “We require objections to the psi to be made with specificity and clarity in order to alert the government and the district court to the mistake of which the defendant complains.” The only factual objection made by the defendant to the psi was that the prior crime was not a crime violence and this did not fairly apprise the government or the court of any objections. Therefor the district court properly relied on undisputed facts.

Contact Information
14 NE 1st Ave
#1211
Miami, FL 33132
Phone: (305) 579-9090 Fax: (305) 579-9090

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Please do not include any confidential or sensitive information in a contact form, text message, or voicemail. The contact form sends information by non-encrypted email, which is not secure. Submitting a contact form, sending a text message, making a phone call, or leaving a voicemail does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Copyright © 2016 – 2025, Swartz Law Firm
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design