United States v. Ahmet Keskes
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 369
| 7th Cir. | 2013Background
- Keskes convicted on six wire fraud and five mail-fraud counts related to selling stolen merchandise online.
- warehouse search in 2009 revealed large quantities of merchandise with store tags; no manufacturer invoices found.
- Items included brand-name goods (Victoria's Secret, FURminator, Toys R Us, etc.) still in original packaging with tags.
- Witnesses described Keskes’ dealings with groups labeled as 'gypsies' and evidence of stolen goods being circulated.
- FBI informant Sturgulewski testified about conversations with 'Robert' and the role of 'gypsies' in stealing and reselling goods.
- Defendant challenged admission of certain testimony and raised sentencing objections based on silence and alleged factual inaccuracy.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Prosecutor's search-warrant comment | Keskes argues comment implied guilt. | Keskes contends improper bolstering of case. | No reversible error; harmless given strength of evidence. |
| Admission of 'gypsies as thieves' testimony | Evidence improper under Rule 401/403, prejudicial by association. | Evidence probative of knowledge; not merely bad character. | Not plain error; ample circumstantial evidence supports knowledge; no reversal. |
| Testimony about Robert's statements | Statements admitted as background with limiting instruction; avoid truth-of-matter use. | Waiver/invalid; improper background evidence if used for truth. | Waived, or at least harmless; even if error, harmless due to abundant other evidence. |
| Silence at sentencing and Fifth Amendment | Silence indicates lack of remorse and supports harsher sentence. | Silence is a constitutional right; cannot be used to enhance punishment. | No plain error; court properly considered lack of remorse; no constitutional violation. |
| Sentence based on alleged storage risk of skin-care products | Public-health risk justification supported by record. | No evidence shows special storage requirement; inaccurate fact. | No plain error; even if inaccurate, record supported consideration and would not yield different sentence. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Hendrix, 509 F.3d 362 (7th Cir. 2007) (single statement about warrant not prejudicial)
- United States v. Cunningham, 462 F.3d 708 (7th Cir. 2006) (extensive wiretap evidence contrasted with minor comment)
- United States v. Villegas, 655 F.3d 662 (7th Cir. 2011) (jury follow court's limiting instructions on evidence)
- United States v. Ambrose, 668 F.3d 943 (7th Cir. 2012) (plain-error review for waived objections)
- United States v. Penaloza, 648 F.3d 539 (7th Cir. 2011) (background evidence admissibility depends on probative value)
- Burr v. Pollard, 546 F.3d 828 (7th Cir. 2008) (silence may reflect lack of remorse and not constitutional violation)
- Johnson v. United States, 903 F.2d 1084 (7th Cir. 1990) (right to remain silent does not automatically negate sentencing factors)
- United States v. Collins, 604 F.3d 481 (7th Cir. 2010) (plain-error standard and effect on acquittal)
- United States v. Corona-Gonzalez, 628 F.3d 336 (7th Cir. 2010) (significant error in sentencing must be clearly erroneous to affect outcome)