United States v. Albert Roberts, III
881 F.3d 1049
8th Cir.2018Background
- Roberts purchased 12 homes from a single seller (Gary Penrod) and obtained loans from various lenders while failing to disclose all properties and other liabilities on loan applications and closing documents.
- He reported inconsistent income figures across applications, claimed owner-occupancy for multiple properties, and received post-closing payments from Penrod described as profit-sharing or kickbacks; none of these payments were disclosed on supplemental documents.
- Indicted for one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud and four substantive wire fraud counts based on two specific transactions (but evidence at trial included conduct from many other transactions).
- Jury acquitted Roberts on the conspiracy count but convicted him on the four substantive wire fraud counts; district court denied Roberts’s motion for judgment of acquittal.
- At sentencing, the district court considered acquitted conduct in calculating loss/victims under the Guidelines, computed a 70–87 month range, and then varied downward to impose a 48-month sentence.
- Roberts appealed denying judgment of acquittal and asserting error from the use of acquitted conduct at sentencing; the appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for substantive wire fraud convictions | Roberts: omissions were immaterial and did not show intent to defraud lenders | Government: evidence (omitted loans, false income, owner-occupancy claims, undisclosed post-closing payments) permitted inference of intent and materiality | Affirmed — viewing evidence in government’s favor, a reasonable jury could find intent and materiality; denial of judgment of acquittal proper |
| Use of acquitted conduct at sentencing | Roberts: relying on acquitted conduct to calculate Guidelines range violated due process | Government/District Court: circuit precedent allows consideration of acquitted conduct at sentencing | Affirmed — Eighth Circuit precedent permits consideration of acquitted conduct in sentencing |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. McAtee, 481 F.3d 1099 (de novo review of denial of judgment of acquittal)
- United States v. Cole, 525 F.3d 656 (review standard for sufficiency of evidence)
- United States v. Cole, 721 F.3d 1016 (materiality requirement for fraud)
- United States v. Stacks, 821 F.3d 1038 (forthrightness about finances can negate intent inference)
- United States v. Louper-Morris, 672 F.3d 539 (definition of materiality—capable of influencing the victim)
- United States v. Porter, 441 F.2d 1204 (intent may be inferred from surrounding facts and circumstances)
- United States v. Trejo, 831 F.3d 1090 (avoid probing jurors’ reasons for inconsistent verdicts; assess sufficiency of evidence)
- United States v. Papakee, 573 F.3d 569 (acquitted conduct may be considered at sentencing in this circuit)
- Rotskoff v. Cooley, 438 F.3d 852 (issues not developed in briefing are waived)