United States v. Alexander
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 9718
| 8th Cir. | 2012Background
- Alexander was convicted after a jury trial of one count §1010 and four counts §1014 related to a HUD-insured mortgage; Counts 2, 4, and 5 were later vacated due to insufficient evidence that Bank of America, N.A. and Bank of America Mortgage were FDIC-insured alter egos of Bank of America; Count 1 (§1010) remained affirmed.
- The HUD-insured loan originated with Bank of America, N.A., and the loan application listed Alexander as employed by Comprehensive Systems with no judgments; she had quit nursing in February 2007.
- At closing on April 2, 2007, Alexander reviewed and signed the application as filed, which contained false employment and judgment information.
- Alexander submitted hardship letters asserting unemployment and home repair issues after moving in, and HUD later foreclosed and acquired title before transferring to HUD.
- The district court sentenced Alexander to concurrent 24-month terms on counts 1, 2, 4, and 5, with supervised releases and restitution totaling $113,113.68; the case was appealed on multiple grounds, including §1014 jurisdiction and loss calculations, leading to a remand for resentencing as to Count 1 only.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| FDIC-insured status for §1014 Counts 2, 4, 5 | Alexander argued no evidence showed Bank of America entities were FDIC insured or alter egos. | Government contends the Bank of America entities were the same through the “same entity” theory. | Insufficient evidence; counts vacated. |
| Knowledge of loan-application contents for §1010 | Alexander only briefly reviewed the application; no knowledge of misrepresentations. | Evidence showed she prepared and reaffirmed statements; knowingly signed false statements. | Sufficient evidence; conviction upheld. |
| Loss and restitution calculations | Dispute over whether loss was over $70,000 and whether foreclosure value offset loss. | Courts may offset by collateral recovery; HUD losses supported by evidence. | Loss and restitution affirmed. |
| Admissibility of plea-bargain rejection evidence | Wanted to admit rejection of plea offer to show innocence. | Verdoorn rule bars admissibility to promote plea negotiations. | District court did not abuse discretion; evidence excluded. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Reaves, 649 F.3d 862 (8th Cir.2011) (sufficiency review de novo for §1014 elements)
- United States v. Walsh, 75 F.3d 1 (1st Cir.1996) (alter ego theory for FDIC-insured status)
- United States v. Chandler, 66 F.3d 1460 (8th Cir.1995) (FDIC-insured status extended to subsidiary for certain bank crimes)
- United States v. Schultz, 17 F.3d 723 (5th Cir.1994) (alter ego/insured-status discussion in bank-related crime)
- United States v. Shaid, 730 F.2d 225 (5th Cir.1984) (scope of §1014 offense and intent to influence lender)
- United States v. White, 882 F.2d 250 (7th Cir.1989) (proof of knowledge/intent in §1014 context)
- United States v. Mancini, 624 F.3d 879 (8th Cir.2010) (loss computation in mortgage fraud; recovery against collateral)